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 (excluding 1 who is recused), so 7 votes are a majority.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

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.

Blocks of Giano prohibited

1) For the duration of this proceeding, Giano II ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not to be blocked, or unblocked, by any administrator, other than by consent of a member of the Arbitration Committee.

Enacted on 01:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support:

The only way we're going to get anything useful out of this is by keeping a very firm lid on the potential drama. Kirill ^(
prof) 01:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 07:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Past lessons. Added "or unblocked" (seems omitted), and "other than by consent of..." (seems the intention) reply
Support. Perhaps we should have done this before. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 09:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
bainer ( talk) 14:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enacted on 01:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

Administrators

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They 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. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:

Standard. -- bainer ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) As bainer said. reply
Deskana (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 14:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Kirill ^(
prof) 01:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 17:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 17:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wheel warring

2) In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion.

Support:

bainer ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse of tools for detail covering various aspects of proper and improper use of tools, and situations where use of tools may be problematic. reply
Deskana (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 14:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Kirill ^(
prof) 01:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 18:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 17:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
There has been past disagreement as to whether a single undoing of another administrator's action, e.g. on a review of an unblock request, is improper. I agree that the better and preferred practice is to consult with the administrator who took an action, before undoing it. Left unresolved here are such questions as to how long a (possibly unjustly) blocked user should be expected to wait if the blocking administrator is offline, and precisely what constitutes an "emergency situation." Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Use of administrative tools in a dispute

3) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a dispute.

Support:

bainer ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) And noting that this principle is interpreted broadly; tools are only ever to be used to further the project's benefit, not a user's. reply
Deskana (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 14:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Kirill ^(
prof) 01:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 18:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 17:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

DefendEachOther

4) Administrators are expected to refrain from issuing blocks in response to personal attacks or incivility directed at themselves.

Support:

Slight modification, but otherwise straight from Tango. -- bainer ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply
"Refrain". As I've said repeatedly: we've got, what, pushing two thousand admins now. It's simple to get assistance. A block solely for an attack or incivility toward oneself is automatically suspect. Recognizing general disruption and acting thereupon isn't prevented like this. It's common sense: people react poorly to personal attacks and incivility, and blocks shouldn't be made from anger, hurt, or resentment. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Though of course exceptions apply; second choice. James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC) This is an important principle, even if there may be exceptions. reply
First choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 17:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

I refuse to support a blanket restriction such as this, even if it is simply asking people to "refrain". I'd say some amount of discretion would be obvious, but I remember a few times when I've blocked people for being incivil to me that were perfectly acceptable, and very few times where such a block would not have been warranted. Deskana (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Per Deskana. This is overbroad. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 14:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
There are exceptions here. Kirill ^(
prof) 01:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 01:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Unsure if this is a changing norm or not. reply
More comment: In the past it has been the case that blatant egregious and obvious misconduct may be handled by an administrator in some cases (although preferable they do not), if they have no prior involvement. What is at issue here is that the "Block-uncivil-extend block-uncivil again" cycle is predictable, and to an extent, needs allowing for. An administrator who blocks should strongly avoid also extending the block for attacks or incivility against themselves, since it may be seen as "retaliatory" (another administrator can equally make that judgement). Also a user who has a block extended for incivility in their unblock message, should not be repeatedly "punished" that way. A blocking admin needs to be able to say "okay, the block is enacted, and extended, they need to sit it out" and not repeatedly extend it. Multiple extending can push a user into an untenable position that otherwise they might not have got into. I prefer a more specific principle for this, covering just "extending blocks":
I could support if a caveat such as "except in gross cases of flagrant abuse" or "where there could be any reasonable disagreement about the appropriateness of the block" were added. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Extending blocks

4.1) A user who responds to a block by significant incivility or attacks on the blocking administrator, may reasonably have a short block extended, but this should ideally not be done by the blocking administrator, and great care should be taken to avoid the creation of a punitive "block->uncivil->extend block->uncivil->" spiral.

Support:

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Considered a bit - move to first choice. reply
Not so sure I like the "ideally", but this is entirely acceptable to me. Deskana (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Second choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 14:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Kirill ^(
prof) 01:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't consider this an alternate to 4, but a specific instance. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Support as an extra (not in replacement of 4.0) James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Third choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 17:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Paul August ☎ 18:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC) I can't think of a situation where this ever should be done by the blocking administrator. reply

Abstain:

I won't quite agree that in no situation would a blocking administrator be warranted in extending a block as a result of the blocked user's incivil comments, but I can agree that the practice should be disfavored and reserved for extreme situations (see my comment on 4). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

DefendEachOther

4.2) In non-emergency situations, administrators should not issue blocks in response to personal attacks or incivility directed at themselves.

Support:

First choice. Indeed, I don't consider personal attacks against sysops to be generally actionable (it should be water off a duck's back to us - that's what we're [not] paid for). James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 19:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, but I can't imagine how personal attacks or incivility alone could possibly constitute an emergency and require such a block. reply
Like this better than 4.0. -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Second choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 17:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
First choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Kirill ^(
prof) 11:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 22:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Exceptions exist, nobody should have to endure these behaviors to an unreasonable degree, and I don't see evidence that administrators routinely block for incivility to themselves. But I would not argue that they are entirely forbidden from doing so in egregious cases, if it's not abused (although it's still better that a different uninvolved admin reviews and acts instead). It would be hard to say what an "emergency" case might be in this wording ("it was an emergency insult against me!" ??). However I have decided after some thought, to abstain rather than actively oppose, to facilitate consensus-building in this area, unless a different decision is preferred. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 22:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Substantially per FT2. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Decorum

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

Standard. -- bainer ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Deskana (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 14:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Kirill ^(
prof) 01:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 17:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Standard of debate

6) As Wikipedia and its editorial community continue to grow, it is inevitable that philosophical differences among the participants will result in disputes over questions regarding project policy and governance. 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.

Nevertheless, the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Discourse is limited by 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 engaging in unbridled criticism across all available forums. It is unacceptable for editors to engage in vituperative rhetoric and public attacks in order to harass perceived adversaries.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

William M. Connolley

1) On 1 July, William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) inappropriately extended a block that he had made, because of incivility directed at himself. Connolley later inappropriately reapplied his block after it was reversed by Geogre.

Support:

bainer ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Concur with the finding of fact; it was "inappropriately extended" for two reasons: reply
- the basis (incivility directed as a result of the first block ~~to the blocking admin who then extended it~~ to other users, an initial block extension to 24 hours, leading to further incivility to the blocking admin, who then re-extended it to 48 hours),
- once another admin had disagreed to the extent of reversing the first block, reinstating it was a clearly wrong way to handle this turn of events. (Note, this is so whether or not unblocks of Giano II may at times have been considered questionable by some users. Whether this unblock by Geogre was appropriate or not, reversing it this way was not.)
That said, this is a mistake many admins have made. It is not necessarily obvious via commonsense until pointed out. Some WP:AGF may be due here as it's possible WMC did not in fact realize this was a problematic response to a blocked party's further incivility.
Correction noted - see wording in red. The initial extension was not made following incivility directed at the blocking admin, as per the initial comment. It was the second subsequent extension that was. The principle stands, but so does the comment about this being a mistake that others have made. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 14:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Kirill ^(
prof) 02:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This remedy excuses not what Giano said... but yes. Deskana (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 02:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Factual, but the underlying incident is six weeks old, and I am not convinced it is necessary to publicize it further. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Geogre

2) On 1 July, Geogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reversed a block placed by William M. Connolley, without first discussing the block either with William M. Connolley or other administrators, instead merely announcing that he disagreed with the block. Geogre also reversed page protection applied by MZMcBride ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) apparently intended to cool the dispute, without first discussing the protection either with MZMcBride or other administrators.

Support:

bainer ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Blocks are placed by users who are trusted with their operation, for proper purposes. As they are not to be placed lightly, so they are not to be reversed lightly. Discussion and consultation (in case of contention, this does not just mean "by those known to be connected to the case or users") are expected if the question is one of judgement rather than (for example) blatant obvious error. reply
I note Bishonen's comment, but I am guided by Geogre's comment ("This is pretty apparently someone looking to block... Block overturned.") that it seems his unprotection was because of a disagreement on the block, not a wish to revert it back to a previous duration. Crucially, he was not quite "pre-empted by User:Avraham - he had time (albeit only 5 minutes) to post that the block was "Overturned", and then to post twice more on the talk page, yet not to click the "reblock" button which directly links from the "unblock" page and would usually be the natural next action, for which 5 minutes from unblock is plenty of time. I am willing to consider evidence and representations that I am incorrect in this interpretation, or that extra good faith should be considered due to uncertainties... but it may be that Geogre's choice of words - strong as they are - and his actions and failure to effect the reblock in that 5 minute timespan following unblock, combined with some past history of concern over tool use in Giano-related matters are the guide I end up coming back to, in interpreting his intentions on this incident. This was not, after all, an action in isolation, it has context and personal/editing history to draw upon in its interpretation. Willing to consider evidence whether this is unduly unreasonable as a line of reasoning (compared to some other line), though, or too slight a margin to fairly call.
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 14:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Kirill ^(
prof) 02:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Mere statement of fact. Deskana (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 02:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Per my comment on 1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Avruch

3) Avruch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) precipitated the situation by making a sarcastic remark to Giano II implying that he is a conspiracy theorist.

Support:

Oppose:

It is true to say Avruch's remarks seemed to start the whole thing off, and that he should not have said it. However to make this finding of fact puts more of the blame on Avruch than is reasonable. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 14:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Per Sam. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
So what? -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Per Sam. Deskana (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Per Sam. James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Overstates the case, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Switching to oppose now I'm back and can check this more carefully. It is not a good representation to say Avruch "precipitated" it. He did not. reply
Analysis: Durova ( talk · contribs) provided useful information in a reply to Stifle ( talk · contribs) ^[1]. Giano II ( talk · contribs) intervened to comment sarcastically to this (he had not been involved in the discussion before), to imply secret knowledge or untoward participation by Durova ^[2]. It was the conspiratorial accusations of this post, and the failure (noted by others) to read the preceding discussion before making allegations ^[3], which Avruch ( talk · contribs) was reproaching ^post. Giano II responded ^[4] rudely enough that it was removed 44 mins later by WJBScribe ^[5]. That wholly unnecessary intervention followed by rudeness led to Giano (under a civility parole) being blocked ^[6]. To me it seems that Avruch's comment should be read as an attempt to put the dispute/allegation into context and probably to defuse the intervention with humor. It may not have been ideal, but attempts to calm matters using direct speech usually fail when Giano is editing in that tone; OTT exaggeration and humor might have provided a reasonable hope to defuse and prevent escalation. (Obviously it failed too.) I note also that any exaggeration was not personally directed "at" a user, per se, but exaggerated the supposed conspiracy only. By contrast Giano's was uncivil and directed at a user ("You truly are a very stupid ignorant person"). Also Avruch did not respond to Giano's comment. Following WMC's block, he took the whole matter for wider communal discussion at WP:AE instead ^[7] and declined to be drawn into personal insults ^[8].
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Questioning if this is an accurate statement of the "precipitating cause". It's not. Switch to oppose for reasons above following review. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Giano in Arbitration

4) Giano II ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been the subject of several remedies passed by the Committee:

"Giano... is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance, more light, less heat." ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano, October 2006)
"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." ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova, December 2007)
"Giano... is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked...." ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC, February 2008)

Support:

As context. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Deskana (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Charles Matthews ( talk) 15:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 22:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Factual from past cases. reply

Oppose:

In light of the fact that no alterations are being made to Giano's sanctions, I don't see this as relevant. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 09:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 13:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC) As unhelpful and irrelevant. reply

Abstain:

Recusing (in this case only) on the proposals relating to Giano. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Giano's comments

5) Giano II ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in public attacks against fellow editors—chiefly administrators, participants in IRC, and members of the Committee—whom he considers to be his adversaries:

"The block was bad, it was orchestrated on IRC, IRC must now be reformed or closed. I am compleytely resolved. Closed would be best. 1=2 and his sidekick need to be sent packing for a start. Many many editors now feel this, and that is whayt is going to happen, so all the whining form the IRV inhabitants on this page is not going to break my resolve to see that chatroom sorted. FT2 need to be dismissed as an Arb, for lying when he said there were no problems on the channel." ( [9])
"Contrary to the lies and falsehood that FT2 tell us that there are no problems on IRC, there are huge problems. The whole place is an ungoverned rabble that is a liability to the project." ( [10])
"It was not incompetence it was deliberate, they knew there would bve no aproval for it here, as there was not. That's why they need de-sysoping and banning from that scurrilous and filthy chatroom." ( [11])
"OH no, those daft little admins have trolled for this, they want to see some trouble well now they bloody well can, they have made one bad block too many in that chatroom. The Arbs can either sanction them and that ridiculous chatroom, or have a revolt from the editors who are sick of that nasty little chatroom." ( [12])
"My enemies don't need an opening they need firing! Most intelligent editors now completely dismiss "the committee" - or at least the "Gang of 7." They are regarded as people not to be trusted or admired. In short, the 7 should be sent packing. It is not only that the decision was plain wrong, the case should never have been accepted in he first place, whether it was the "Gang of 7's" agenda to be rid of me, or just plain toadying to Fred Bauder I neither know nor care. However, most people accept it was one of the other. So if the committee are too cowardly to do anything about it, then others must - that is why I edited those pages. Why should we have to look at evidence of these incompetents spite and malevolence. So untrustworthy are they, I would not want to see them judging a singing canary. We see this so called arbitration committee making mistake after mistake and no one lifts a finger about it. They strut about receiving just about enough support from the few remaining fools and henchmen on IRC to remain in power - while most of the serious editors just ring their hands in despair or simply disappear. It is like watching the antics of a deluded self serving third world junta in the final days before an implosion. The "Gang of 7" wanted rid of me, and they may get their wish. Thanks to their efforts, I no longer see the point of editing, but I won't be going quietly. Wikipedia deserves and needs better than these sad, but vicious apologies for Arbs. How many more have to be driven off just to protect their cosy little nests and egos. They don't need me editing their decisions they need firing!" ( [13])
"Oh please Carcharoth just ignore them - they are not worth it. There is little to choose between the lot of them. We shall have Florence of Arabia, her sidekick on the horse and that man with his his organ here soon, all full of wronged righteousness. The Arbcom is now surplus to requirements, ignore them - I do." ( [14])
"What on earth has IRC to do with this? Are there no limits to what you and IRC can come up with Ryan, in your ever increasing thirst for power, Ryan" ( [15])
"Oh well he spends half his life on IRC chatting away, always popping up here, there and everywhere, being important - too hard to AGF with him." ( [16])
"Complete rubbish! The liars on the arbcom accepted a case they had no business accepting, they intended it purely to try and "get me", and they failed. Their position is untenable, they are a walking disgrace to the project. Morally they are no better than Daniel Brandt! - at least one knows what side he is on! So take your block and stick it where the sun don't shine!God what a project! The lying bastards can't even do their own dirty work!" ( [17])
"Carch, you are rather missing the point, the sanction is there to allow me to be blocked the second I ever start posting the truth - that is how it works and why the whole daft case was cooked up and accepted. The problem is everyone now knows that is how it works, so each time I am blocked the Arbcom appears more ridiculous than the last - everyone except the Arbcom can see that - which rather proves my point. If they weren't so devious one would pity them. Like some third world Junta. Probably planning to have me bumped off as we speak - buried in concrete or something." ( [18])
"Oh here we go again - The Arbcom fucks up! So it must be Giano trolling or Giano is paranoid. Well done Thatcher - which one of them wrote that? The Arbcom are a bunch of failing cowards and liars - take your pick which is which." ( [19])
"My only wish is that the community see the true colours of its disreputable, lying and disgraceful Arbcom. What it chooses to do with them is up to the community. To me, they are people of no consequence, they are as ants on the pavement and about as much use." ( [20])
"Rv 1=2 who is performing his usual attention seking trolling, in matters which have nothing to do with him" ( [21])
"Just be a little darling and show some intersest in content (than none of these busy admins seem to have time for) and revert here" ( [22])

Support:

As more context. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Deskana (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Charles Matthews ( talk) 15:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
However, I don't feel Giano's words against the arbcom should really be at issue here, so much as the way he behaves towards fellow editors. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 17:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

As above. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 09:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 13:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC) As unhelpful and irrelevant. reply

Abstain:

Of necessity. Obviously I'm aware Giano has sought to insult me (as he has others) at times. I have taken the view on this, that I disregard such comments about myself in all issues related to Giano. Likewise I will not endorse any finding touching upon comments to myself when I did not see fit to take formal action at the time, and when I would not complain about them now. In brief, he may insult me or the Committee I sit on as he likes, and willingly I accept it (although others may choose otherwise). It is not ideal, but it is completely bearable and disregarded -- so long as he does not also, as well, turn his barbs upon other individual users in a disruptive, inflammatory manner. Anti-gaming provision - others may have their own views, as they may; this relates purely to my own decision to not support this finding because it mentions personal attacks on myself. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Recusing (in this case only) on the proposals relating to Giano. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Existing remedy replaced

1) Remedy 2.2 in IRC is vacated, and replaced with the following remedy:

" Giano II ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction until 9 February 2009. Should Giano II make any edits which are judged by consensus, in a discussion involving the opinion of at least five administrators, to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano II may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

Support:

First choice. -- bainer ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Added "...the opinion of..." for clarity. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 01:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
First choice. Deskana (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Third choice. It would stop the itchy block finger scenario where a minor block precipitates a major row, but it might lead to endless discussion about whether to block over a borderline remark. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Fourth choice. James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Drama invitation. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Given how noticeboard discussions tend to work, I think this will go nowhere useful. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Recusing (for this case only) on the proposals relating to Giano. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Existing remedy replaced

1.1) Remedy 2.2 in IRC is vacated, and replaced with the following remedy:

" Giano II ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction until 9 February 2009. Should Giano II make any edits which are judged by any designated administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano II may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

"The Committee shall, within one month of the closing of this case, designate no fewer than five administrators as designated administrators under this remedy."

Support:

Second choice. -- bainer ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Third choice. Deskana (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Second choice. If only limited number of administrators are involved it limits the chance of endless discussion; however it could lead to the designated admins becoming proxy targets for wikipolitical debate. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
First choice. James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Charles Matthews ( talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

As in 1.2 below; any pre-selected group is going to become inextricably involved in the attacks themselves. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
(I will vote on on this item, as the reasons for my partial recusal on the Giano-related matters in this case are inapplicable here.) The evident purpose of this proposal was to reduce the number of disputed or questioned blocks of Giano by allowing only a small group of specially designated administrators to effect such blocks. In particular, administrators with whom Giano has had bad relations would presumably have been excluded. But in a comment today, Giano has specifically anticipated that he will deem himself to be in a state of permanent dispute with any administrators placed on the list of the five admins authorized to block him. As such, the proposed remedy fails of its intended purpose, and my strong inclination against creating an ad hoc blocking system for a single user is reinforced. I note that if the case closes without a change in the Giano remedies from the IRC case, the temporary injunction enacted in this case will lapse and the original remedy from that case will reenter into force. (I did not support that remedy at the time, but that is neither here nor there.) My hope is that, under any system of remedies, Giano will conduct himself so that future blocks do not become necessary, or even arguably necessary. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

~~# Recusing (for this case only) on the proposals relating to Giano. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)~~ reply

Existing remedy replaced

1.2) Remedy 2.2 in IRC is vacated, and replaced with the following remedy:

" Giano II ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction until 9 February 2009. Should Giano II make any edits which are judged by any arbitrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano II may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

Support:

Third choice. -- bainer ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Second choice. Deskana (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
First choice. Giano has always had a genuine commitment to a neutral, high quality encyclopaedia. I think he has made great strides recently in realising how the endless debates over his behaviour are damaging. I see this remedy as leading up to a position where the arbitrators work with him to get to a position where we remove the restrictions on him. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Second choice. James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Given the frequency with which we happen to be the targets of Giano's ire, this will basically become a "'block->uncivil->extend block->uncivil->' spiral" at its worst. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I am really getting tired of special Giano rules. -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Recusing (for this case only) on the proposals relating to Giano. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Existing remedy vacated

1.3) Remedy 2.2 in IRC is vacated.

Support:

First choice. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Third choice. James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 21:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Standard blocking procedures don't work in this case, and that's what this is inviting. -- Deskana (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't feel comfortable just removing this remedy. If Giano made a borderline incivil remark, there would still be some administrators willing to block for disruption, and others who would dispute any block. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Recusing (for this case only) on the proposals relating to Giano. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Geogre's sysophood suspended for a month

2) Geogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are suspended for one month.

Support:

Oppose:

Excessive. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Punishment. Not time for that yet. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Deskana (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Per Josh. James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 21:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

In light of past instances of such behaviour, this may well be warranted; my mind is still not yet made up, however. -- bainer ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Duration concerns, hence 2nd choice. Geogre undoubtedly knows his handling of his concerns was improper on multiple levels. He has involved himself in Giano-related incidents in the past in a problematic way that led to him being named once before as well, and not only that, but including again crucially, the very same issue - misuse of tools to unhelpfully undo page protection on an edit warred page, in a Giano-connected dispute: reply
- ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Geogre: "...made a provocative and disruptive edit... shortly after Giano's edits. The following day, he reverted on separate occasions [using admin tools] an attempt to protect the page and an attempt to delete it, thereby escalating the disruption...")
and was cautioned for it as a party:
- ("The arbitration committee will take an unsympathetic view of any future failures in this regard.").
He knows (or should have known) this was deemed very unacceptable. This was not an isolated incident but a repeated one. That said, Karmafist's suspension of privileges was for 2 weeks, and I cannot see that longer is beneficial here, whether as a warning or as a deterrent. See 2.1 as an alternative.
Ultimately, will bow to consensus and not oppose if others feel I am going too lightly here in assuming he will learn from 2 weeks as much as 4.

Geogre's sysophood suspended for a fortnight

2.1) Geogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are suspended for two weeks.

Support:

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Preferred choice, per my comment above. reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Still punishment. -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Deskana (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Per Josh. James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 21:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Geogre cautioned to avoid wheel-warring

2.2) Geogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is cautioned to avoid wheel-warring in future.

Support:

James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Per James' below, formal warning. reply
This is the second time in just over 6 months that Geogre unprotected a page (and/or otherwise used tools) which was protected to reduce an incipient dispute. He acted identically the first time, was cautioned in general with other parties that "an unsympathetic view" would be taken on repetition, and identically repeated. In the circumstances a formal, specific, warning is appropriate (lest it be said he was unaware). Even though I agree completely as well, with the reasons why it's not adding anything that isn't obvious.

Oppose:

Eh. -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
No administrator should be wheel-warring in the first place, so this is something of an empty sanction. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Except that "is cautioned" for sysophood violations is generally a final warning. James F. (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Per Sam. -- Deskana (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Per my comment on finding 1 above, coupled with the fact that the definition of "wheel-warring" is still somewhat unsettled (see my comments on this issue in the IRC case, as well as on my Q&A page from last year's ArbCom election, citing precedents on this issue). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

William M. Connolley & Geogre prohibited

3) Both William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) & Geogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are indefinitely prohibited from taking any administrative action with respect to Giano II ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or edit wars in which Giano II is an involved party.

Support:

bainer ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Very much a second choice. reply
Added "or edit wars in which Giano II is an involved party" to cover loophole. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
First choice. In this case, placing a time limit on a remedy of this form does not seem like a good idea to me. "Indefinitely" does not mean that we would not be able to review this remedy later and remove it, if appropriate. Deskana (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
First choice per Deskana - indefinitely means we're not setting the time this ends right now, but will remove it when it is no longer needed. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
First choice. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Make it explicit. -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

This is certainly worthwhile advice, but I am not convinced it is necessary as an ArbCom sanction. Neither of these two administrators acquitted himself to best advantage in this incident, but it is isolated and six weeks old, and I am not convinced that a formal arbitration remedy to address it is necessary. I abstain rather than oppose because this is certainly more reasonable than the other proposed remedies. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

William M. Connolley & Geogre prohibited

3.1) Both William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) & Geogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are prohibited from taking any administrative action with respect to Giano II ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or edit wars in which Giano II is an involved party, for a period of 6 months.

Support:

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) First choice - indef is a bit long. Geogre knows his sysop access is at risk if he doesn't judge and/or consult likely controversial unblocks/unprotects better, no need to assume he needs an indef reminder; William M. Connolley's mistake was a generic mistake on block extending and I am not yet ready to assume it was "Giano-oriented"; he needs to learn this for all blocks, not just this one user. 6 months should ensure both avoid the mistake in respect to Giano in future; indef seems unnecessarily excessive - we can revisit if either does not. Also this covers concerns (related to the approaches of both, or their chosen reactions, or their future neutrality), if Giano were to be a party in an edit war and they decided to intervene with admin tools. This prohibition protects both (and indirectly, Giano and other users in the community) from that type of mistake for a considerable but not undue time. reply
Second choice. Deskana (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Second choice. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Second choice. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

I see no need for a time limit, and if the matter warrants review later, then as Deskana says, we can certainly do so. -- bainer ( talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
No reason for time limit. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Per Bainer. James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Per my comments on 3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Avruch admonished

4) Avruch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished not to make comments containing implicit personal attacks on other users.

Support:

bainer ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Per comment on finding of fact. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
A single borderline comment is not generally worthy of such notice. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Deskana (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 22:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Per analysis at Finding of Fact. reply
An isolated instance of incivility or ill-chosen words does not warrant an arbitration finding. The fact that Avruch's remark indirectly led to an episode of drama is not his fault. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 01:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Per personal concerns that the Finding of Fact may not in fact be the most accurate statement of the "precipitating cause". Move to oppose, see Findings of Fact. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 22:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Question remanded

5) The question of what, if anything, should be done about Giano's continued public attacks is remanded to the community as a whole. The Committee asks the community to come to a consensus on how to proceed within a month of the closing of this case.

Support:

It is becoming untenable for us to deal with this directly, given that we ourselves are increasingly the targets of said attacks. Frankly, the community needs to decide how it wants conduct policies to be upheld in such circumstances. Kirill ^(
prof) 02:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Tired of special Giano rules. -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 18:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Per jpgordon. Also as stated elsewhere, "drama invitation". The entire matter has come to us precisely because the community cannot presently handle that decision..... reply
This has repeatedly failed and I'm surprised it was suggested. -- bainer ( talk) 00:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
If only it was that simple. Deskana (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I have no faith in the community's ability to achieve what we have so far failed to do. We're here to make these kind of tough decisions. If the Committee doesn't want to do said job, then perhaps we should dissolve. James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Let's not special-case Giano any more. Civility and what should be our policies about it in general should be topics of discussion and consensus-building, yes. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 17:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Per FT2; the community is not going to come to consensus any time soon. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Paul August ☎ 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Recusing (for this case only) on the proposals relating to Giano. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Appeals of sanctions

1) All appeals of sanctions made under the provisions of remedy 1, or a variant thereof, are to be made directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

This presumes, of course, that a variant of remedy 1 passes. -- bainer ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Deskana (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Clarifying. Added "..or a variant thereof..." FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 22:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I think we can do better, but this works if nothing else does. Will support if no better idea gains traction. reply
Recusing (for this case only) on the proposals relating to Giano. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

One other thing to note, it's not appropriate to edit others' comments in such a way as to change their meaning, and it's not appropriate to remove comments wholesale (unless on your own talk page, for example). Some of William M. Connolley's edits of the pages for this case sail close to the wind in this respect, this for example, and particularly this blanking. All parties to arbitration cases (as well as users in general) should take care not to edit in such a way. -- bainer ( talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

For associated discussion, see here (Thatcher's user talk). Daniel ( talk) 02:14, 5 July 2008 (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.

As of 07:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC):
Principle 1, 2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5, 6

Finding 1, 2, 4, 5

Remedy 3 passes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him /
Follow his steps}

Finding 5 no longer passes due to updated majority. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him /
Follow his steps} 06:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

You think? Seems to me there are two abstentions, making the majority six on that question. -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I think Jpgordon is right about this. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, maybe I shouldn't edit when I'm not awake. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him /
Follow his steps} 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

As of 04:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC), the following are passing:
Principles 1, 2, 3, 4.2, 5, 6.

Findings of fact 1, 2, 4, 5.

Remedy 3.

Daniel ( talk) 04:19, 20 August 2008 (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.

#Move to close. I am not certain that issuing a decision as to Geogre and William M. Connolley at this late date will serve much purpose, but absent a motion to dismiss, the case will be handed down eventually, and better now than another month from now. The case has presumably been kept open for additional arbitrator discussion and consensus-building on the Giano-related remedy, but it has become evident that no progress is being made. (For discussion of the effect of a resolution of the case as it currently stands, see my comment under proposed remedy 1.1 above.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Close this. Not much use in keeping entire case open effectively for just one point, when whatever is decided would be unlikely to improve it much from the status quo anyway. The protective/preventative remedy that directly relates to the issues that initiated this specific case, counts more, and is agreed upon. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 23:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Close. Feh. -- jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Close. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 09:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Close. Kirill ^(
prof) 12:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Close. We're divided on a Giano remedy - what's new? But not for ever, I think. Charles Matthews ( talk) 14:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Close. Deskana (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Given this has four net votes, has been active for 48 hours, and the 24 hour period from Newyorkbrad's comment lapses in 150minutes, I plan to close this case at 00:00 UTC pending any developments. Daniel ( talk) 15:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose close for the moment. Can the clerks hold off on closing this for a bit please. Paul August ☎ 14:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply

#Change to "hold close for 24 hours to allow time for discussion of Paul August's point", which I suppose is a very temporary oppose. Will resume support after 24 hours unless there is significant momentum toward revisiting any part of the decision. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Withdraw opposition at this time, as there seems to be no further move toward changing the proposed decision. My reservations about the case stand, but it still needs to close. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply