This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Request for temporary injunction

1) I request that User:David Gerard be temporarily desysopped pending a decision from the Arbitration Committee on this case, as many other admins involved have been desysopped as well, and Jimbo Wales seems to have overlooked him. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
David Gerard was one of the admins who brought the matter to Jimbo's attention. Since Jimbo clearly did not "overlook" him, the obvious implication is that Jimbo has an conscious reason why he did not feel David needed to be included in the emergency desysopping. ➥the Epopt 15:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
I don't believe this is necessary. David | Talk 13:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it was necessary to temporarily desysop anyone, as the issue rather died once Jimbo deleted the template himself. However, if it's to be done, it should be applied equally and fairly. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[1] and User talk:David Gerard#Warning_level_2.3B_Blanking. - David Gerard 13:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither. Unless I'm mistaken, DG protected the deleted article after Jimbo deleted it, so David was following process as he saw it because the userbox would likely be recreated. --Deathphoenix 14:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the delete log, I deleted 'user pedophile' once (on a basis of "wtf? DIE!") and recreated and protected it blank (to discourage recreation) and deleted 'user paedophile' once (as the explicit evasion of the previous deletion it was). After Jimbo deleted both, I recreated and protected both blank (to discourage recreation) - David Gerard 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you undid something I had already reverted because "wtf? DIE!", which is the very definition of a wheel war. It was on TfD, so the proper mode of action would be to cast your vote with everyone else, not to use your admin powers to preemptively end the debate. (I'm not claiming that what I did was any better.) Ashibaka tock 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A template like that is stupidly blatant trolling on a sufficient level to shoot on sight; it appears the presumption it is up for a vote is erroneous. I note that Doc glasgow and MarkSweep felt the same way. Note also there's been a string of GNAA-created inflammatory templates; this looked at first glance like more of the same, and even on the face of it was far too stupid to presume any reason to let it live - David Gerard 10:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock of Joeyramoney

Note: Jimbo Wales has now unblocked Joeyramoney with an admonition to "Go forth and do good"(01:21, 8 Feb)

2) Less of an "injunction" than a request that Joeyramoney (talk · contribs) be unblocked pending this RFAr and/or with the understanding that his actions were not trollish or worthy of a weeklong block. This seems like nothing more than a new user caught in the middle of something they didn't expect. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
I think this may serve as a good lesson to him. Kind of like getting hit by a car while playing on the freeway. Fred Bauder 17:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:

Comment by Giano | talk 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC). The world is not perfect. It is never going to be. Now for some bigger news - Minors have access to, and indeed sometimes edit wikipedia! <Shock and horror [2]> There I have told you. Which means all of us over 18 now have a moral, and in many countries legal and collective responsibility to protect them, and if that's too establishment for you try a moral responsibility. In the last 36 hours I have seen paedophiles likened to such minority groups as Homosexuals, various religions, and wait for it "Women". Well here's the even bigger news all of those groups are legal, and what's more actively discourage Paedophiles. So what makes Wikipedia different? - You tell me - Because I seriously don't know.[reply]

I have seen Jimbo Wales criticised for taking a decisive stand. What option did he have? This stupid boy "Joeyramoney" who employed the template and claims to be 16 - do we know him personally - have we seen his passport? Similarly the person who made the template - hands on our hearts what do we know of them - or even each other - Nothing! We are dependent on trust based on common sense. So if an editor abandons common sense and announces " I am a Paedophile" what do we do? - knowing minors have access to the site - do we sit here and say "Oh that's nice - what a clever sense of humour" or do we say "Get the fuck out of here" . My mind is very clear on that choice, and I do not retract one word which I said last night. Two admins and Joeyramoney made a catastrophic era of judgement - for the good of the project examples have to be made, and they must go, along with anyone else who claims to be a potential danger. This is not about Wikipedia being whiter than white it's about plain common sense. Giano | talk 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
The reason for the week long block by Jimbo is: blatant trolling http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_5&diff=prev&oldid=38350734 [3].
Of his contributions that do not relate to the Pedophilia userbox, none are trolling and all article and article talk edits appear to be good contributions (the only fault I can find with his editing is that he could do with marking minor edits as such - not worthy of a block). His comments on his talk page appear that he wasn't being serious, was unaware of the furore he is at the centre of, has removed the offending template and appologised. IMHO I feel that the block is excessive and support User:Locke Cole's request. Thryduulf 14:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this may have been a premature blocking. Ral315 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support Locke Cole's request per Thryduulf. It seems like a Wikipedia version of a moral panic to me. David | Talk 14:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With help from Curps' bot,I blocked further accounts (presumably) of his (Joeyramoney5 etc), for ban evasion, but I do agree that the original blocking was not necessarily warranted. I support this call. NSLE (T+C) 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also support this unblocking and again note that the original block was only removed after a strong consensus to do so had been reached at WP:AN. --CBD ☎ ✉ 15:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I did reinstate Jimbo's block a few seconds before he did, after reviewing this information, the fact that he has 16 and it was therefore an ironic joke (not funny though), and that he made edits like these [4][5][6], suggest that he was just a new user adding some useful edits. After discussing this with Locke, I also request that his block be lifted.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 15:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I whole-heartedly concur with this request. He did no wrong. —Nightstallion (?) 16:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, can we unblock him now while it may still do some good? It's one thing to bite the newbies, it's another to swallow them whole :) - Haukur 17:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that he "did nothing wrong" as some suggest, since even if it was intended as a joke (i.e. AGF) then it was in very poor taste and clearly inappropriate in my mind. However, there is a larger failing in the system here. We should have been able to say, "Hey newbie, pedophilia user boxes are inappropriate. We are deleting it, please don't try to put it back". At which point, if he goes along, there is no cause for any block. Instead, we whacked him around in a manner that was clearly punitive rather than protective of Wikipedia. If this is the metaphorical equivalent of hitting him with a car for playing on the freeway, then I suspect he's already got the point to not do it again. Let's pick the guy up, dust him off, and try to make a decent impression on him. I support lifting the block. Dragons flight 17:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a good way to proceed with the car accident analogy. As for whether or not he did anything wrong, well... Guy comes into our site - sees a lot of people have funny stickers on their pages. Finds our stickers shop. Picks those that appeal to him. Sticks'em on his page. Gets thrown out of town. Maybe his sense of humor is off but he was clearly proceeding in good faith to make use of what he saw—very reasonably—as facilities offered by the site. The problem is in our stickers shop - not in our newest customers. - Haukur 19:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have to move away from the mentality that we need every practical joker in the world editing the site and causing huge uproars in order to build an encyclopedia. So he's blocked for a week, it's not that big a deal. I'm more interested in getting the attention of a much more important group of users: all of you. We. Are. Here. To. Write. An. Encyclopedia. We have so much nonsense around here because we put up with so much nonsense.--Jimbo Wales 21:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A promising newbie made one stupid joke which he immediately apologized for once he realized it was inappropriate. You have him blocked for a week, probably enough to drive him off for good. We're normally friendly and forgiving to clueless newbies. Please unblock him. That way he can write an encyclopedia with the rest of us. - Haukur 23:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a user, a non-admin, you have gotten my attention. And you've frightened me. This is the first RfA that I've ever read while it was going on, and I understand that there's been some sort of "process versus product" argument among admins, who accuse people who care too much about process about not caring about the encyclopedia. I don't know much about it. But seeing that someone can be blocked, for reasons that seem arbitrary, and are admitted to be arbitrary, but won't get unblocked because the people asking for it to be undone aren't thinking about the encyclopedia and are worried about "nonsense"... this frightens me. What I hear you saying, Jimbo, is, "maybe it's best if everyone just keeps their heads down for awhile and works on the encyclopedia, and no one will get hurt".
I have a lot invested in my contributions to Wikipedia, so I think that's what I'll do—keep my head down for awhile. I'll take what seems to me like the prudent step of unwatching the more controversial articles I'm on. Maybe in the future if I find myself in a dispute, I should just move on to other pages rather than engaging in talk or policy page discussions. This seems the safest course, at least until I hear somebody say something along the lines of, "play by the rules, and you won't get punished." The folks who don't have so much invested can edit those controversial pages and engage in those disputes. Maybe that's a desirable outcome and what you intended. It makes me feel a little cold and less happy about being a volunteer to this project, though. --TreyHarris 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Trey. Don't forget, Jimbo, we're volunteers here. Even in paid workplaces, Dilbert-style restrictions on behavior in the name of "professionalism" generally backfire. You might want to read the history of Atari's video game division and see what happened when the management tried to clamp down. Now, if you think my contributions to the encyclopedia aren't worth having, then I'll leave. I will say this: I contribute more to actual articles than many of the recidivist wheel warriors who consume much of the community's time and attention. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, did it never occur to you that Joeyramoney was also here to write an encyclopedia? Look at his contribs; for being here just a few days, he's been mostly helpful. He decorated his userpage with a bunch of userboxes, but he also made a number of article edits. Hardly the sign of someone just here to cause disruption. Are we going to toss Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite the Newbies away as well while we're here? Because the only way I can support your block (and subsequent desysop of Karmafist) is if I believe we shouldn't assume good faith and should bite newbies. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like it, you're free to spend half a million dollars starting your own Wiki encyclopedia. -- Pakaran 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be a dick. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has now stated that he has no objection to an unblock of User:Joeyramoney if the ArbCom decides upon one. [7] Please decide swiftly. - Haukur 16:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a 15 1/2 year old who <gasp> edits wikipedia. If I was a new user I would be looking to follow what other users do, thus if an admin created a template I would probably believe he did it following the policies. This is the only case I have seen on wikipedia of a template being created to block people. (a trap) I have never seen anything like it and I wouldn't expect it seeing that evrey other thing on wikipedia has a strong community spirit. So, let me get this straight; we are blocking a user because he trusted an admin knew what they were doing, had a sense of humor, and was in the wrong place at the wrong time?? Please un-block this innocent by-stander! (not to mention he was not trolling.Flying Canuck 23:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wholehartedly agree that he should be unblocked. The user is young, a relative newbie, and had absolutely no reason to suspect that his minor joke (perhaps in bad taste) would trigger the concequences it did. This ought to be a precedent-setting instance of upholding WP:BITE. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 00:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, it seems Jimbo has unblocked Joeyramoney. He also left a note on Joeyramoney's talk page for those curious. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by clerks:
See proposed finding of fact 18 for presumptive evidence of good faith attempt by Joeyramoney to limit damage once he was made aware of it. This may mitigate the action in using the template. --Tony Sidaway 21:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed final decision

Proposed principles[edit]

Administrators are trusted community members

1) Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. (See Wikipedia:Administrators.)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Yet we often don't. There are multiple examples of this, but i'll cut to the point and submit Kelly Martin's RFC and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Autobiography, since Jimbo himself has broken that rule multiple times. If Jimbo, who should be the ultimate Wikipedian, the Wikipedian we all look up to, breaks policies -- why should anyone follow any policies? Karmafist 17:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This principle as phrased would be used by process obsessives as a stick to hit others over the head with. Although I do agree with the thrust of this principle, the morass of policies and guidelines is impenetrable. No-one reads it all because it is literally impossible. The only purpose of the Manual of Style, for example, appears to be (1) to be written to by people who can't stand ambiguity (2) to create sticks to hit other editors over the head with. These two aims appear to be the source of most visible instruction creep. While process is important to some degree, there's a reason WP:IAR has become so popular - David Gerard 11:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Administrators may make mistakes

2) Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administrators are not expected to be perfect. Consistently poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Of course, however, the mistakes you're "allowed" to make seem corrolary to your status on Wikipedia. How many mistakes would someone of Raul's status have to make, or for that matter, Jimbo himself? When do you reach the point where someone's judgement is beyond oversight? Karmafist 17:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not even Jimbo does. Do you remember the stub Jimbo created recently which was promptly speedied by Sjakkalle, who was not promptly struck by lightning? - David Gerard 11:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Administrators granted blocking power provided policy is followed

3) Wikipedia:Administrators are Wikipedia users who on the basis of trustworthiness have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users can not execute. This includes the power to block and unblock other users or IP addresses provided that Wikipedia:Blocking policy is followed.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Assume good faith

4) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Users may not be blocked for unpopular opinions

5) Wikipedia:Blocking policy provides that users may be blocked for repeated vandalism but not under current policy for disruptive editing although such a policy is proposed. Nor may users be blocked for unpopular opinions. Editing under multiple accounts when their "main" account is not blocked is not grounds for blocking.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Absolutely, but I fear that this will not be enforced. Karmafist 17:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Amen. I'd venture to say that the success of the NPOV philosophy rests on the proper enforcement of this principle. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something about "countering systemic bias" should be mentioned here? --AySz88^-^ 18:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users may be blocked for disruption

5.1) It is current Wikipedia policy and practise to block editors who engage in especially egregious disruption, including trolling and other provocative behavior clearly intended to cause a disturbance.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Unfortunately, the intention to cause a disturbance is assumed, and good faith is thrown out the window. --Dschor 13:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by clerks:
In practise egregious trolling and provocative behavior get short shrift. Dschor (talk · contribs · logs) was blocked today for creating a Template:User pedo, and this was extended after discussion revealed that he had a history of trolling. Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk · contribs · logs) was blocked for one month for bad behavior leading up to her editing WP:ENC to state, in large letters: "WIKIPEDIA IS FASCISM" --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing this, I wonder if I shouldn't also propose a principle against overuse of the word egregious. --Tony Sidaway 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by others:
Note that Mistress Selina Kyle was also blocked indefinitely by myself, although it was ultimately overturned *grumble*.--Sean Black (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

6) Wikipedia editors are required to maintain a minimum level of courtesy toward one another, see Wikiquette, Civility and Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Intimidation

7) Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy. All users are encouraged to remove personal attacks on sight.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Some flame wars are productive, and who wants to be a cop? Ignore the bollocks and write an encyclopedia, already! --Defenestrate 23:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against encouraging users to remove personal attacks, there's quite enough of that already. WP:RPA is a disputed guideline, more frequently stretched by those with a hostile agenda of their own than applied in good faith to make the environment more congenial. Bishonen | talk 10:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Dispute resolution

8) In cases where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Apparently this has not been considered as an option?! --Dschor 13:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Personal attacks

9) No personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Provocation

10) Wikipedia editors must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
So it's only when attacked that we should avoid attacking others? I don't understand. This is an unnecessary restatement of WP:NPA.

--Defenestrate 23:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace

11) A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within reason (e.g. Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Generally, you should avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:User page.)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
What does "unrelated" mean? It's an encyclopedia; it is supposed to hold "all human knowlege." What sort of knowledge is unrelated to this project?

--Defenestrate 23:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring

12) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (repeatedly performing an administrative action that has been undone by another administrator) is bad form.

Comment by Arbitrators:
I would change "bad form" to unacceptable. Once you realize administrators have a divided opinion conflicting administrative actions need to stop and the process of decision making and dispute resolution needs to begin Fred Bauder 15:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prominently featured at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes is the text: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. Fred Bauder 15:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
While there is general agreement it's bad form, there are no clear guidelines on when an admin should revert the actions of another admin, or when they should not, or when they must not. I think mis-judging these categories is one of the main problems that has happened over the unfortunate template. If we can clear this up it will be a great step forward. The Land 14:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if a guideline (rather than a policy) regarding this were to emerge from/as a result of this case then this would be a Good Thing. Thryduulf 14:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Inappropriate" would roughly split the difference between "unacceptable", which is pretty strong, and "bad form", which sounds like it's out of a comedy routine. --Michael Snow 16:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AAP indicates the depth of community opposition to wheel warring. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision making and dispute resolution

13) Decision making on Wikipedia is usually done through discussion of issues leading to consensus, see Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#How_are_policies_decided.3F. In some instances policy represents a codification of existing practice, or decisions made by the administrative superstructure of Wikipedia (Jimbo or the Board of Directors). When disputes arise regarding what is policy or what ought to be done forums such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard are available for discussion regarding the matter, and failing agreement, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Prominently featured at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes is the text: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. Fred Bauder 15:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Absolutely. I will admit that I have been sucked into a couple of edit wars myself, but we must never forget that they are fundamentally harmful to Wikipedia and to the process of consensus. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is open to all

14) Permission to edit Wikipedia is in no way dependent on an editor's race, religious belief, political affiliation, status of criminal accusation, conviction, or confinement, sex, or sexual preference.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Feel free to add other qualities we don't care about. ➥the Epopt 15:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This might go a bit far and is actually untrue, we have consistently run Nazis off. Fred Bauder 17:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I'm aware of it's for edit-warring, personal attacks and threats. I suppose there is a hypothetical neo-Nazi who was knowledgeable on the subject and could provide credible references. (Ah, there I go again) - David Gerard 07:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
We chase off Neo-Nazis because they are trolls and POV pushers, so far without exception. If a Neo-Nazi came by who was happy to stick to NPOV and cite reliable sources, I don't think we'd want to ban him immediately. Ashibaka tock 23:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. What's important is contributing in an NPOV/NOR/CIVIL nature, not whether you're part of a certain clique or not. Otherwise, Wikipedia's credibility will become challenged on a regular basis by those who are discriminated against. Karmafist 05:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I don't believe this is true for one second. We do chase off Nazis, cultists, and ethnic nationalists all the time. Needs to be narrowed. --Defenestrate 23:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could we elaborate on this a little to the effect of: ", provided that the editor's actions remain consistent with the goal and purpose of building an encyclopedia." or something similar. I'd like to be explicit that community tolerance is not an excuse or invitation for engaging in divisive, hateful or bigoted ideologies. Dragons flight 18:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add "...as long as these aspects do not affect their editing of the encyclopedia" or "...effect violation of other policies"? --AySz88^-^ 18:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't an experiment in inclusion. It's not a social utopia. There's no right to freedom of speech here. We're writing an encyclopedia, and the reputation of the encyclopedia should be important to us. With news stories about myspace.com and Internet attacks on children in the media's attention right now, do we want to draw that negative attention to us by fighting for "pedophiles' rights"? I say we don't. —Cleared as filed. 22:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pedophilia isn't a crime. It's unhealthy, but it's legal. (To be clear on my position, child molestation and sexual interference are illegal, and facilitating those practices is something we don't and won't do.) Frankly, I don't want to be around such people and I'd keep them away from kids, but I don't see why they can't write encyclopedia articles from a safe distance away.
Wikipedia allows people with all manner of attitudes and orientations to edit, no matter how unsavoury some might find those traits—pedophile, schizophrenic, Christian, Democrat, Holocaust denier, homosexual, Canadian. If they edit in a manner that is in line with our policies on verifiability, NPOV, and civility, they are welcome to contribute; they may even represent a useful resource for us by providing non-mainstream perspectives on these issues.
I'd prefer that pedophiles stay home copyediting to having them out looking for kids to molest. Our volunteers write encyclopedia articles; they don't babysit children—their unsuitability for the latter should not preclude them making a useful contribution through the former. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is open to all

14.5) Wikipedia permits anonymous editing by anyone. Should users' opinions or history become known to the community, unless the user presents themselves in a grossly unacceptable way they may continue to edit.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Wikipedia does not permit anonymous editing by anyone who is abusive. User is singular, themselves and they are without antecedents, and "grossly unacceptable" is far too subjective. The whole statement is without meaning afaik. --Defenestrate 23:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"They" is commonly accepted by a majority of English speakers as a gender-neutral singular pronoun, as well as being a plural pronoun. "Themselves" is less commonly accepted, but the same interpretation would still be accepted by most speakers of the language. The antecedent of "they" and "themselves" is therefore "user". JulesH 19:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators should use the "Reason" field

15) Administrators should always give a well thought-out reason for a priveleged action (deleting, blocking, unblocking, etc.), when possible.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I read the admin how-to guide and it didn't tell me how to use it when clicking the "restore" button. Ashibaka tock 02:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gahh, you're right. Thanks for pointing that out. Evil saltine 05:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
The deletion log of Template:User pedophile demonstrates the need for this. Evil saltine 02:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may be somewhat is misleading since (as Ashibaka pointed out and I forgot) there's no way to give a reason when restoring a page. Evil saltine 05:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is not 'just another user/admin'

16) Actions by Jimbo Wales may not be overturned except by appeal to Jimbo.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
I agree Jimbo is not 'just another user/admin'. That said, I would hope Jimbo is just another human being. I would think Jimbo is as open to the idea he is capable of mistakes as the rest of us are, and that he can also accept that people who overturn him can often be acting in good faith. I'm not arguing that the overturning of Jimbo be a common occurrence; I am merely arguing that the overturning of Jimbo not be a de facto capital crime. Circumstances should be considered and good faith assumed all round, by both Jimbo and the overturning party. Therefore I respectfully disagree with the assertion that actions by Jimbo Wales may not be overturned except by appeal to Jimbo. Jimbo seems to agree, noting he will accept it if the arbcom issued a ruling overturning something he did. [8] Hiding talk 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly agree with Hiding. If Jimbo says he will accept the decision of the arbcom, then his request to be treated as a peer with the parties should be honored --James S. 16:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punitive blocks are allowed

17) Blocks may be placed, even when there is no ongoing problem/disruption, in order to punish the user for bad behaviour and encourage them to avoid it in the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Consensus may be over-ruled

18) Neither community nor admin consensus should be taken as a guide to action if Jimbo or 'senior admins' may disagree with the consensus view.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
If they may disagree? What does that mean? Please edit this clause to make sense. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Also, what is this new tier of 'senior admins'? Where do they seek appointment, or is it age restricted? Hiding talk 22:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors; nor is it a battleground

19) Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. As a result, Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, including discussion of controversial topics which may be criminal in some jurisdictions (Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). However, Wikipedia is not a battleground, and a user should not act uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly or intimidatingly, nor create or modify articles just to prove a point. These principles also apply to user pages (WP:NOT#What your userpage is not) and any templates that appear on them.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

User pages are for project work

20) Wikipedians have their own user space, but user pages are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. The primary purpose of user-space pages should not be social networking but to provide a foundation for effective collaboration.

Comment by Arbitrators:
More or less a quotation from Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_free_host.2C_blog.2C_or_webspace_provider which is policy Fred Bauder 22:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the policy is rather crabbed but typical of early policy making. I would prefer a policy allowing folks more playful self expression. Fred Bauder 22:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
This one reads more like a guideline than a good policy. But something like it gets the idea across: your userpage is about you as a person, but you in the context of Wikipedia. I think something like this is why people got so upset at the wiki games a while ago — it was clearly not project work - David Gerard 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Ashibaka has wheel warred

1) Ashibaka (talk · contribs · logs) has wheel warred over the deletion of ((User pedophile)) and ((User paedophile)). [9]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Carbonite, et al advocated banning pedophiles

2) Carbonite (talk · contribs), El C (talk · contribs), and Giano (talk · contribs) have advocated a permanent ban of all confessed pedophiles from Wikipedia, with comments such as "Block on sight. No quarter," [10] and "Those that state even in jest that this is their orientation should be banned permanently." [11]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  • Definitely inapropriate behaviour. Pedophiles are still people, and Wikipedia is not a children's site. Any possible POV pushing by them should be handled with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phroziac, please be aware children use this site all the time for research, and often edit it too. Those of us older and (supposedly) wiser have a human obligation to keep a protective eye on them. Giano | talk 22:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What child molester (which is not the same as pedophile) would use an openly logged site to lure a child? Chat rooms have huge advantages from a child molester's viewpoint. Is there any evidence that anyone has ever done this on Wikipedia? On the other hand, people post obscene material all the time, and we have some pretty risque permenant articles. Why shouldn't we worry about real issues before banning people over hypothetical problems?--Prosfilaes 04:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jimbo has said [12] "They said that pedophiles should be banned from editing Wikipedia. That's a very respectable position."—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find it respctable. If Jimbo says it is, he loses respect, in my view. DES (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I stand behind my statement 100%. I do advocate the permanent banning of all admitted pedophiles from Wikipedia. Carbonite 18:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too do not retract one word. Giano | talk 07:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonite blocked Joeyramoney

3) Carbonite blocked Joeyramoney (talk · contribs · logs) (for an indefinite period of time) for adding ((User pedophile)) to his userpage. [13] This block is not covered by Wikipedia:Blocking policy, as implicitly admitted by Carbonite. [14]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Sounded good at the time, run all the pedophiles off. But all that was caught was a user with a fetish for user boxes. Fred Bauder 13:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Block rationale ([15]) indicates Carbonite's block of Joey was based upon Carbonite's moral beliefs rather than Joey's actions. This is inappropriate admin behavior. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:24, Feb. 6, 2006

Paroxysm created the userboxes

4) Paroxysm created ((User pedophile)) and ((User paedophile)), the purpose of the latter being to "sidestep admin abuse". ([18]; admins only)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Joeyramoney added the userbox in jest

5) Joeyramoney added ((User pedophile)) to his userpage in jest, as evidenced by userboxes of a similar nature on his userpage, see also [19].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
The joke was made in poor taste, but that's irrelvant. It was a joke, what should have been done was to ask him to stop using it rather than the kneejerk reaction that ensued. Karmafist 17:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Absolutely agree with this. I think the weeklong block is overkill. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was still a joke made with very poor taste. Joey should be warned to be more careful about this in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phroziac (talk • contribs) 14:59, February 6, 2006
I think a week-long block for a joke in poor taste by a 16-year-old is excessive, especially as the joke originated on his own user page. This is especially true given that he actually has made real contributions to Wikipedia articlespace. His is far from the worst behavior in this whole affair. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As others pointed out, userboxes are like bumper stickers or workplace jokes. You wouldn't put a NAMBLA bumper sticker on your car even if you were trying to make a joke of covering the entire frame. Not saying that it's right to block him, but there is an alternate view here. Ashibaka tock 00:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo blocked Carbonite, et al

6) Carnildo (talk · contribs · logs) blocked Carbonite, El C, and Giano indefinitely for their advocacy of banning confessed pedophiles. [20]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

The Land unblocked Carbonite, et al

7) The Land (talk · contribs) undid Carnildo's blocks. [21]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

El C retaliated

8) El C blocked Carnildo for 24 hours. [22]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

The Land unblocked Carnildo

9) The Land unblocked Carnildo soon after. [23]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Jimbo desysoped wheel warriors

10) Jimbo desysoped some of the admins involved, who he considered to be wheel warring. These admins are Carnildo, Karmafist (talk · contribs · logs), El C, BorgHunter (talk · contribs · logs) and Ashibaka. [24]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
I changed 'most' to 'some' above... of the admins involved in the Joeyramoney block and pedophile templates deletion 5 were desysoped and 8 were not. --CBD ☎ ✉ 17:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El C attempted to intimidate Carnildo

11) El C made an apparent attempt to intimidate on Carnildo's talk page: "You must immediately cease from inciting hate speech against children, or I will do everything in my power to have you removed from Wikipedia indefinitely." [25]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Wheel war over Joeyramoney's block

12) Radiant! (talk · contribs · logs) undid Carbonite's indefinite block of Joeyramoney, but the block was reinstated at one week by Jimbo based on his opinion that this edit by Joeyramoney was "blatant trolling". Karmafist (talk · contribs · logs) reunblocked, but the block was redone at one week by both Voice of All (talk · contribs) and Jimbo at the same time. [26]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Jimbo's comment related to a keep vote at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_5#Template:User_paedophile Fred Bauder 15:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
This sets yet another frightening precedent, considering Jimbo violated WP:AGF and WP:BITE in the middle of his insertion into the Wheel War, in what I can only assume is likely an attempt to avoid this incident from getting to the mainstream press1, which is fairly irrelevant since at our current rate, there will be another controversy in a few weeks. Karmafist 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Given my comment at Joeyramoney added the userbox in jest, I think it's obvious I think Jimbo got this way wrong. I could see blocking for 24 hours just to sort things out, but a week for a teenager who obviously had no idea what he was getting in to? You can't really blame Radiant! or Karmafist for unblocking... —Locke Cole • t • c 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Locke Cole. While I understand that Jimbo was (quite rightly) probably more than a little pissed off at the wheel warring, I beleive that unblocking user:Joeyramoney was right - unlike the other unblockings. Thryduulf 14:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that this unblocking was proper and note that Radiant acted only after a strong consensus to do so had been reached on WP:AN. --CBD ☎ ✉ 15:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made a minor update to add block durations, in clarification of the facts. I do this in light of current disputes as to the proper length of block that Joeyramoney "should" be under. InkSplotch(talk) 19:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo made a decision in the heat of the moment that was probably misguided. Given the circumstances, it was understandable, but it should be reconsidered. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the merits of Jimbo's block, reverting a block by Jimbo without any attempt at discussion shows a pretty substantial failure of common sense. I know, Jimbo is just another user, etc. etc., but let's not be silly — he has the ultimate veto, and wheel warring with him is asking for a desysopping. —Cleared as filed. 22:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think, at this point, the 'Jimbo is just another user' theme can officially be put to rest. No other user or even admin, bureaucrat, et cetera could declare self-immunity to 'wheel warring' or pick and choose amongst 'wheel-warriors' to determine whom to desysop and whom not. Likewise, claims that blocks are never punitive, miss-impressions that Wikipedia follows 'free speech' guidelines similar to US law (where even the most unpopular speech is allowed if it does not serve to commit a crime), implications that consensus opinion of users (or admins) holds greater weight than 'seniority', or proclamations that all users are held to the same standards of civility. Continuing to spread these 'high ideals' only serves to mislead people and create animosity when those who thought them true are disabused of the notion. There is essentially a body of myth about Wikipedia's 'culture'... some of it written in to official guidelines and policies. I happen to think many of those myths would have been good ideas, but if they are not to be followed then the myths should not be propagated. I think the purpose of this project is important enough to continue despite my view that there is 'a better way', but it is self-defeating to portray this as something it is not. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

13) Beginning with this post by Carbonite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) an extended discussion was held on the topic of blocking self-identified pedophiles Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Blocking_self-identified_pedophiles.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Admins who were not desysopped

14) Admins who reverted the actions of other admins in this dispute who were not desysopped by Jimbo were: Radiant, Doc glasgow, David Gerard, MarkSweep, Physchim62, The Land and Jimbo Wales himself.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I've added myself to the list above. The Land 16:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by clerks:
See my more detailed proposed finding of fact, 17, on this subject. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Note that in adding this I make no claims that any of these are more/less deserving of desysopping than the other list above, I just think it is important to have a complete list of everyone who took part to compare when judging the actions of those who were desysoped. Carbonite is not listed because he placed the original block on Joeyramoney, but did not revert the action of any other admin. Marksweep and Violetriga are included not because they performed the original deletes of the two 'pedophile templates', but because they then also reverted recreation of them by other admins. --CBD ☎ ✉ 15:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you missed at least one.Geni 19:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales was Wheel Warring

15) Under Wikipedia:Wheel war, a Wheel War is when two or more admins counter each others' administrative actions. Jimbo has administrative privledges, and he has countered the administrative actions of Karmafist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Radiant (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). [27]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Out of jurisdiction: Jimbo Wales created the Arbitration Committee, can dissolve it at will, and is not subject to its rulings ➥the Epopt 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, Jimbo has agreed to abide by ArmCom decisions in this case (which is one of the reasons why the arbitrators should close it without action.) --James S. 17:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Although I can't expect, but only hope, the arbcom will rule fairly towards this, Jimbo is not better or worse than the rest of us after inserting himself into this discussion. If we're not bound by the law, then nobody is -- and we're at the top of things here, how will people at the bottom act when they see us acting like this? Karmafist 16:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by clerks:
Jimbo Wales has responded to the suggestion that he wheel warred, describing it as "a logical contradiction" [28]. --Tony Sidaway 20:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I changed the wording from "...actions of myself and Radiant..." to "...of Karmafist and Radiant...". --AySz88^-^ 18:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo is not bound by any rule on Wikipedia, plain and simple. What he did was step in using his authority as owner of the project and acted as he saw fit. Jimbo's rule is final and absolute. There is no questioning of this rule. If someone doesn't like it, they can either fork or leave. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo not being bound by the rule does not change the fact that his actions fell under the criteria of wheel warring. This is not a contradiction. That's not to say I think his actions were wrong, just that we should call a spade a spade. Evil saltine 02:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, I think Jimbo was banging heads together rather than wheel warring; there needs to be an executive power somewhere. Hiding talk 22:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. As per Linuxbeak. Jimbo's actions did not fall under the criteria of wheel warring. Wheel warring, which is harmful, occurs when privileged users engage in peer-on-peer warring using their privileges. The idea that Jimbo Wales is a peer of other admins misses the point. Robert McClenon 22:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(having recused myself as a clerk) I'd say that one must look at the effect of the action. For instance Jimbo's action in flipping bits had the effect of ending the war. David Gerard's action in protecting deleted templates had the effect of preventing recreation of the templates. In such cases, we find clear evidence of administrators taking calculated actions that have beneficial effects and tend to resolve a situation, often in situations where others are acting irrationally. Such actions are not abusive and (whatever semantic quibbles one might want to introduce) are to be commended. --Tony Sidaway 19:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, that's not a complete picture. If we 'must look at the effect' then look at all the effects. Jimbo's actions also had the effect of causing several valued contributors to leave - some of them have come back, some haven't. Does that mean Jimbo's actions were 'bad'? We could look at tone... but then David Gerard was saying that the person who created the template and the one using it were clearly both vile trolls, though he now acknowledges his surprise at finding that this is true of neither. Likewise, his comments about the 'consensus of the stupid' on WP:AN in regards to this issue weren't exactly WP:CIVIL, as he acknowledged with subsequent (laudable) statements that he (and others - I include myself) needed to be less aggressive. We could look at policy... but then there is no policy which allows infinitely (and I use that word deliberately) blocking someone for describing themself as a pedophile... nor was there one which allowed speedy deleting of such a template (though there now is). Hmmm... so maybe precedent? But no, that was on the 'other side' of the issue... there was a huge debate on pedophiles some months back and it was generally agreed that Wikipedia allowed free expression of even unpopular ideas. Too there have been users openly proclaiming themselves as pedophiles on Wikipedia for years... and indeed even after this was posted on the evidence page here no action has been taken to ban these users from the site or remove the pro-pedophilia statements from their user pages. One user, pretty much at random, was persecuted for a mild 'pro pedophilia' statement... but both before and after that other users with far more extensive statements of support and descriptions of their sexual interest in minors have been left alone. In short, I don't believe the 'dividing line' between the 'good admins' and 'bad admins' in this case was drawn on any of these issues. Not the 'effects' of their actions, their tone, their good intentions, policy, precedent, or anything except that the admins 'in trouble' (except El C, who was a separate issue) were on the 'losing' side of the wheel-war. Yet... look at the realities. If they were wrong then why haven't User:Zanthalon and the other self-professed pedophiles been driven from Wikipedia by an angry mob? Why haven't their user pages been sanitized of these verbotten comments? Could it be because Wikipedia has always had a policy of allowing free speech... and if so then why are the admins who tried to follow that principle the ones 'in trouble' while the admins who broke policy to excise it are not? And if Wikipedia does not respect free speech (for pedophiles at least) then why are we not treating all statements of pedophilic interest the same as the one in this case? It seems totally inconsistent and arbitrary. --CBD ☎ ✉ 21:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyramoney is not a troll

16) Aside from the userbox affair, Joeyramoney's contributions are those of an apparently well-intentioned new user, and not a troll.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Absolutely, he's a newcomer. Karmafist 05:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
This is my suggestion. Dragons flight 18:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support this - excluding edits related to the userbox affair, the only "fault" with Joey's contributions is that he hasn't marked minor edits as minor - not an uncommon faux pas for new users. See also my comments towards the top of this page. Thryduulf 20:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. NSLE (T+C) 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, I still make that same faux pas from time to time, and I'm a bureaucrat... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A straightforward application of WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. quoted from The Statement of Principles of User:Jimbo Wales Hiding talk 22:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many administrators were involved in the wheel war

17) Administrators who reverted the administrator actions of others were as follows:

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • At the time I redeleted Template:User pedophile the TfD discussion involved only the newly created Template:User paedophile. Surely one of those templates was an unneeded fork/duplicate of the other, and since it was the "ae" version which was being discussed on TfD I considered the "e" version to be the superfluous one (note that I got confused about the two versions myself and that my deletion summary contains a typo; read verbatim, it states that Template:User pedophile is a duplicate of itself, which obviously makes no sense). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I saw the template I shot it on sight, rather than first investigating the history, the admin action logs, TFD, etc., etc - David Gerard 11:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by clerks:
Factual account. From timeline which I shall submit in evidence. Jimbo's position is apparently that it is not logically possible for him to wheel war[29], so his reverts of sysop actions are omitted. The purpose of this finding is not to apportion blame but to record the broad scope of the wheel war. This summary also omits, as User:CBDunkerson points out, serious aspects of wheel warring that are not directly undoing the actions of others. --Tony Sidaway 05:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Going over the lists I note that Carnildo and El C are not included in the breakdown above. They didn't revert the actions of other admins (that I've seen), but admins blocking each other is another aspect of 'wheel warring'. Overlapping removals of those blocks by The Land, Geni, and Worldtraveller would also constitute 'wheel-warring' on this issue (though I happen to approve of their actions). List updated, thanks. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Physchim62 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (myself) and Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are not currently parties to the case, although it could be argued (not saying that I agree) that we were engaging in wheel warring (Doc glasgow for deleting, myself for deleting and for closing the TfD early). If a general reprimand for wheel warring is to be handed out to all, it would seem rather unfair to the admins who are parties that two admins escape on a "technicality". Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Radiant did not wheel war. He unblocked after discussion at WP:AN and over half an hour after Carbonite noted "If another admin believes that pedophiles should be editing, they may unblock and I won't reblock." Radiant's actions do not meet the deinition "when an admin takes it upon him or herself to undo another admin's actions without consultation, or deliberately ignores an existing discussion (usually at WP:ANI or WP:DRV) to implement their preferred version". The discussion was there, the rough consensus can be read, the blocker's statement is clear. No wheel warring occurred within Radiant's decision. His name should be stricken from above. Hiding talk 21:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyramoney's actions after being made aware of the controversy

18) After being blocked by Carbonite at 1428 and unblocked by Radiant! at 1548, Joeyramoney was made aware of the controversy and, by 1813, had removed the template from his userpage.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by clerks:
Mitigation. He took a reasonable step to minimise the damage. --Tony Sidaway 05:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
And this is precisely why I think his block should be lifted. If he were really a troll his behavior would have been far different.. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales may have acted hastily during this affair but has apologised and shown regret

19) In the heat of a fast moving and far reaching wheel war that appeared to be worsening rapidly, User:Jimbo Wales may have acted hastily, in at least the case of his remarks to User:Radiant!. Jimbo subsequently apologised [30] and expressed regret, acknowledging that he may have erred, and demonstrating that none of us, no matter how highly respected, is infallible but that all of us can and should do our best to make amends.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  • Not sure I agree, since one interpretation of what Jimbo said here: [31] could be that he feels that the ArbComm does (in that he's inviting ArbComm to overturn his action). Further, this is a proposed finding of fact. Either it's true or it isn't, it's actually not a jurisdictional matter, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

The Land commended

1) The Land is commended for acting to defuse the potential wheel war over blocking.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • By unblocking the questionable blocks, but also a great deal of work handling the forest fire on IRC and in talk pages in real time while it was happening. He did great. (And was a most calming influence on me ;-) - David Gerard 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Ashibaka desysoped

2) Ashibaka is desysoped for wheel warring. He is free to re-apply for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship whenever he likes.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Perhaps a better remedy would be some sort of "wheel war probation"? I think desysoping is a bit harsh (even though I completely disagree with Ashibaka over what was being undeleted). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of Ashibaka's statement, I think any "remedy" with him is unnecessary. However, in the event some remedy is desired (for any of those desysop'd) I strongly urge some form of temporary (six months to a year) "wheel-war probation" instead of stripping them of their sysop powers. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a boot? --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonite, et al required to reapply for adminship

3) Carbonite, Carnildo, El C, Ashibaka, BorgHunter, and Karmafist are required to reapply for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Whatever. I've done nothing wrong, so you're worse off without me if you don't want me back or if another admin breaks policy again. I'm just trying to cover everything here so I can get back to welcoming, I should hit 1800 tonight. Karmafist 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that any remedy that requires me to re-apply for adminship is equivalent to permanently de-adminning me. For the past month and a half, I've been using OrphanBot to remove no-source and no-license images from articles, and that's generated an incredible amount of ill-will. I know of three established users who are likely to actively campaign against me, and approximately 8000 users that they can recruit to vote against me. --Carnildo 04:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by clerks:
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo#Update_19:49.2C_30_October_2005_.28UTC.29 where the community response was interpreted as declining to confirm adminship. The community and the Committee were thus able to negotiate a meaningful way to handle the remedy. --Tony Sidaway 22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
This has been frowned upon before. Basically it's a ready-made bloodbath (if you're suggesting forced reapplication). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that some of the parties involved were using their admin powers inappropriately, this was more akin to an edit war: edit warriors get blocked temporarily to allow them time to cool down. Jimbo himself stated this desysoping is meant to be temporary to give them time to cool down: unless the admins involved abuse their powers more, I don't see why this temporary desysopping should be made permanent. --Deathphoenix 15:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too think the desysoppings were made with the intention of their being a temporary cool-down period. I would hazzard a guess that a preiod of 1 week would be what Jimbo had in mind (as that is how long he blocked user:joeyramoney for). After that, imho, their sysop status should be restored with a warning that if they wheel war again they will automatically be desysopped and have to reapply at WP:RFA. At this point I don't feel that the inevitable maelstrom that requiring these users to reapply at RFA would cause would benefit the community. Thryduulf 15:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is a little different than the stevertigo style...these admins were desysopped by someone other than arbcom, and this remedy would simply require them to go through the normal process. However, it would be better for arbcom to simply make a decision. They could leave them desysopped, and possibly resysop others...While I haven't looked at the evidence much yet, it appears that El C made a really minor blatant abuse, and should be warned and resysopped. It's rather doubtful that an RFA would do anything other than leave them all desysopped. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, El C was one of the people that wanted to ban all pedophiles. I'd like him to get the same remedy as the others. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wan't this what arbcom tried with user:Stevertigo? It didn't work.Geni 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to cause a bloodbath. Choose another option. Stifle 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El C didn't do anything wrong. If he's required to re-apply for adminship you might as well flip my admin bit too, I won't be using it anymore. Bishonen | talk 15:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Agreed wholeheartedly [32].--Sean Black (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonite, et al lose adminship for one week

4) Carbonite, Carnildo, El C, Ashibaka, BorgHunter, and Karmafist will have their adminship restored one (1) week after it was removed. Where applicable, they will be sternly warned against wheel warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Whatever. I've done nothing wrong, so you're worse off without me if you don't want me back or if another admin breaks policy again. I'm just trying to cover everything here so I can get back to welcoming, I should hit 1800 tonight. Karmafist 05:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
This may need adjustment (some of those who lost sysop access may have not been at fault or wheel warred, making this remedy inappropriate). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not worthwhile in my opinion. Several problems: First of all, this sounds too much like punishment for me. It's not like a one week ban, which has a high likelihood of waking the person up. Second, I feel that atleast a few of these should be left desysopped. There have been lots of complaints about Karmafist's administrative actions recently (pretty much starting with the Pigsonthewing arbcom case, where arbcom sanctioned him to not use admin powers on Pigsonthewing), and Carnildo made an indefinite block on another admin during this edit war. This is just such an obviously bad decision. Third, no arbcom case ever lasts less than a week. Arbcom could order a speedy re-sysop, but I don't think they would bother. If anything, change it to a week after the arbitration case ends. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)
Regarding your first issue, this was meant to be a "everything else is too harsh, is there a lightweight remedy we can use?" option. Regarding your second issue, I strongly discourage the ArbCom from using this incident as a backdoor to desysop'ing someone who isn't exactly popular with certain groups right now. Specifically in the case of Karmafist, I think his unblock overriding Jimbo was justifiable (look at Karmafist's unblock comment; suggesting Jimbo assume good faith). Karmafist may not be perfect, but this shouldn't be turned into a forum to punish him for his other past actions. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonite, et al placed on wheel war probation

5) Carbonite, Carnildo, El C, Ashibaka, BorgHunter, and Karmafist are placed on "wheel war probation" for a period of six months. If, during this time, they engage in wheel war activities any editor may ask the Arbitration committee to reopen this case and have the ArbCom consider further remedies.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Whatever. I've done nothing wrong, so you're worse off without me if you don't want me back or if another admin breaks policy again. I'm just trying to cover everything here so I can get back to welcoming, I should hit 1800 tonight. Karmafist 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed "wheel war probation" remedy as mentioned above. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea. All decent admins already know they shouldn't wheel war. Wheelwar probation for some individuals can only have the bad effect of encouraging not-so-decent admins to disrespect and/or revert their decisions (with a "Nya na na na, not a thing you can do about it"). This for six months? No. Bishonen | talk 15:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Carbonite, et al desysopped

6) Carbonite, Carnildo, El C, Ashibaka, BorgHunter, and Karmafist are desysopped. They may apply for adminship on RFA if and when they choose.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Whatever. I've done nothing wrong, so you're worse off without me if you don't want me back or if another admin breaks policy again. I'm just trying to cover everything here so I can get back to welcoming, I should hit 1800 tonight. Karmafist 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
This is, IMO, unnecessary. Ashibaka fairly well explained his actions, and Karmafist was (IMO) justified in his unblock. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El C didn't do anything wrong. If he's desysopped you might as well flip my admin bit too, I won't be using it anymore. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Me neither [33].--Sean Black (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paroxysm reprimanded

7) Paroxysm is reminded not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, even in cases of perceived abuse of administrator privileges.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I'm suggesting this as a remedy, because circumventing the protection is the closest he came to trolling. You can reword it if I'm referring to the wrong policy or something. Ashibaka tock 22:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Is re-creating a userbox which was apparently deleted out of process intentionally disruptive? Certainly it ended up being disruptive, but that was apparently not Paroxysm's intention -- he simply recreated the userbox which had been deleted out of process at least once before after it had been protected blank. There is no scienter here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.112.129 (talk • contribs)

SPUI banned for two weeks and placed on Probation

8) SPUI's creation of a userbox that referred to previous incarnations of the pedophile userbox was purposely inflammatory. For attempting to aggravate the dispute in order to make a point, SPUI is banned from Wikipedia for 2 weeks. Additionally, he is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. After he finishes serving out his ban, administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:


Comment by others:
(recused as clerk) The Committee doesn't agree to a two-month ban. Here's a shorter alternative.--Tony Sidaway 10:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI banned for four weeks and placed on Probation

9) SPUI's creation of a userbox that referred to previous incarnations of the pedophile userbox was purposely inflammatory. For attempting to aggravate the dispute in order to make a point, SPUI is banned from Wikipedia for 4 weeks. Additionally, he is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. After he finishes serving out his ban, administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:


Comment by others:
(recused as clerk) The Committee doesn't agree to a two-month ban. Here's a shorter alternative.--Tony Sidaway 10:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


All parties are reminded to remain civil and assume good faith

10) All parties, including editors, sysops, and even Jimbo himself, are cautioned and reminded that, even in fast moving wheel wars, it is important not to lose sight of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  • Goes with the "what about Jimbo" finding of fact. It was pointed out in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Proposed_decision#What_about_Jimbo? that no actual penalty could be imposed against Jimbo. (nor do I personally think one should be, other than a reminder) This remedy is merely a reminder and it certainly is well within the powers of ArbComm to so remind all users. I'd point out that my admiration for Jimbo has only increased because, after reflection, he chose to apologise and try to make amends. Would that all leaders were so thoughtful and conscientious. But I disagee with those on ArbComm who said it is not ArbComm's place to point this out. I think it is and I encourage them to do so in the interests of fairness. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussion[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
User:Talrias and User:Jacoplane should be joindered into this case for [34]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
This entire RfA is absurd. It should be closed without further action and the parties involved, the arbitrators who voted to take the case, and Jimbo should all have a cup of tea. --James S. 00:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input ➥the Epopt 02:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This RfAr was entered into without any attempt at dispute resolution. This is a clear violation of the spirit of wikipedia, and of policy on arbitration. I concur with James S. - this RfAr should be closed without further action and we can all get back to editing the encyclopedia. --Dschor 13:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previous attempts at dispute resolution are not required. What's required is that they either be tried, or someone has a damn good reason to believe that it won't be worthwhile. When's the last time you saw an RFC with a favorable outcome? The last one I saw that was remotely decent was the Kelly Martin one..she stopped insta-huffing userboxes. And the community lynched her. Of course, she would've stopped without an RFC too... Additionally, unlike with users, admins have basically no authority over other admins. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 22:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No arbitrators voted on this case. The arbitration process was short circuited by Jimbo, and for a good reason. A lot of poeple believe the behaviour of most of the desysopped admins was inappropriate. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 22:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


More