Revision as of 22:27, 6 February 2006

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop 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.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

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.

On this case, 0 arbitrators are recused and 1 (Filiocht) is inactive, so 8 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators are trusted community members

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

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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 or egregiously poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrators granted blocking power provided policy is followed

3) Misplaced Pages:Administrators are Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy is followed.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Civility

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

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dispute resolution

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

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personal attacks

7) No personal attacks.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wheel warring

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

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC) (Fred suggested "Bad form" should be "unacceptable", but I disagree with making a blanket statement to that effect)
2. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC), both bad and unacceptable
3. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Fails to restate existing policy Fred Bauder 16:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. can be better worded ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Abstain:

Wheel warring

8.1) Misplaced Pages:Wheel warring (repeatedly performing an administrative action that has been undone by another administrator) is unacceptable; see Misplaced Pages:Resolving_disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute."

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. could also be expressed as a form of edit warring, but this is fine ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Raul654 19:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decision making and dispute resolution

9) Decision making on Misplaced Pages is usually done through discussion of issues leading to consensus, see Misplaced Pages:Consensus and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages (Jimbo or the Board of Directors). When disputes arise regarding what is policy or what ought to be done forums such as Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard are available for discussion regarding the matter, and failing agreement, Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Misplaced Pages is open to all

10) Users are primarily judged on the basis of their edits. Permission to edit Misplaced Pages shall never be revoked solely because of an editor's race, religious belief, political affiliation, status of criminal accusation, conviction, or confinement, sex, or sexual preference.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not our actual practice, we do exclude editors who present themselves in a grossly obnoxious way. Fred Bauder 17:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• we would exclude them for their presentation, not for having a belief or a biological characteristic: if an otherwise-acceptable editor were discovered through non-Misplaced Pages means to be a Nazi or a Communist, we would not ban them solely for that discovery ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

1. prefer 10.2 ➥the Epopt 19:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. No; it's a nice thought and in general holds, but this is too open to problematic interpretation.

Abstain:

1. holding off while discussing this with Jimbo ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC), prefer 10.2
3. I'll stick with the charter wording. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is open to all

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. prefer 10.2 ➥the Epopt 19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC), prefer 10.2

Abstain:

1. I'll stick with the charter wording. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is open to all

10.2) It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Misplaced Pages unless they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus, an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales. In addition, "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." - http://wikimediafoundation.org/Non_discrimination_policy

Support:

1. ➥the Epopt 19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 19:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Raul654 19:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Harm to the project has to be the standard.
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

User pages

11) While not explicitly stated on Misplaced Pages:User page, it is implict there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute. The pedophile userbox (and the like) falls into this category.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Basis of the dispute

1) Following creation of a pedophile userbox, a vehement wheel war occured between multiple administrators early on February 6, 2006. Details of the dispute can be found on the evidence page (as summarized by the Arbitration Committee Clerk's office).

Support:

1. Raul654 16:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 16:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Desysopping

2) The dispute culminated with Jimbo Wales blocking Joeyramoney for a week, and (following consultation with available members of the Arbitration Committee) temporarily desysopping 5 administrators involved in the wheel war, for their actions during the wheel war. Those administrators were Karmafist, BorgHunter, Ashibaka, El C, and Carnildo.

Support:

1. Raul654 16:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 17:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Borghunter's comments to David Gerard

3) Borghunter's comments on David Gerard's talk page were both highly inappropriate and needlessly patronizing, to the point of absurdity constituting a violation of both WP:POINT and WP:NPA. (Borghunter has subsequently expressed contrition for the vandalism template )

Support:

1. Raul654 17:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
2. absurdity is not a violation, so specify what was violated ➥the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 19:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Abstain:

Recreation of deleted template under new name

4) Paroxysm created Template:User paedophile in order to "sidestep admin abuse", the repeated deletion of Template:User pedophile by multiple other admins. This action was disruptive and served only to escalate the wheeler war.

Support:

1. Raul654 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ashibaka's actions

5) Ashibaka's actions - restoring Template:User pedophile three times and Template:User paedophile twice - were highly counterproductive.

Support:

1. Raul654 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Carnildo's blocks

6) For statements he interpreted as supporting pedophiles, Carnildo indefinitely blocked three user with long, well established reputations - Carbonite, El C and Giano. This constitutes an abuse of admin powers.

Support:

1. Raul654 22:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

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.