Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:51, 14 February 2006

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

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Userbox creation stopped

1) That userboxes (however they may be defined) are, until the close of this case, not to be created. Any user creating a user box will be warned, and persistant creation of boxes despite this warning may results in blocking. Any user box created may be speedily deleted regardless of it's content, with the proviso that this deletion be noted here. This injunction does not affect normal editing of existing user boxes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I see no pressing need here. Userbox creation per se was never the issue; moreover the rate of new userbox production has reduced greatly. From some 2000 in January, the rate has fallen to about 600 in the first two weeks of February, comparable with the rate for December. The immediate issue here in my opinion is reproduction of deleted content, so an injunction on recreation of deleted templates might be useful, but I hardly think it's necessary at this stage. I also share Lar's reservations on whether it could ever be workable. --Tony Sidaway 03:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• This seems like a reasonable idea iff paired with a hold on deletion as below. - brenneman 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Is this really a workable idea? I'm just asking! I see the desire for balance but I think since anyone can create templates, enforcing a project wide hiatus on creation of boxes may be problematic. FAR more users can create things than can delete them. Also as written it's rather unclear. Does it mean that for example I can't do any new uses of {{user}} {{userbox}} on my user page? ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox deletion stopped

2) That userboxes (however they may be defined) are, until the close of this case, not to be deleted. Any admin deleting a user box will be warned, and persistant deletion of boxes despite this warning may results in blocking. Any user box deleted may be speedily restored regardless of its content, with the proviso that this restoration be noted here. This injunction does not affect normal editing of existing user boxes, which may be required for existing "clearly divisive" user boxes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again I see no pressing need. There is no massacre of userboxes; indeed they're being created at many times the rate at which they're being deleted. Let us not permit the philosophy of Chicken Little to color our decisions. --Tony Sidaway 03:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Just asking for a cease fire, paired with the injunction above. - brenneman 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• this also seems tough to achieve. who defines "clearly divisive" ?? ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway banned from deleting material on related pages

3) That Tony Sidaway shall delete no material from any pages relating to this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't think we need an injunction over such a trivial matter. We seem to have attracted the attentions of a clerk, who can perform such refactoring as may become necessary, so I undertake not to remove any more of his skeleton findings of fact. --Tony Sidaway 11:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tony Sidaway appears to have a great deal of time to devote to Arbitration, and by deleting material as opposed to striking it through or at best merely supplying additional commentary he may affect the course of procedings. In the webcomics ArbCom this behavior was roundly censured and Tony apologised, however he has already deleted large segments of text and reshaped debate in a manner more to his liking. To ensure clarity in the process, Tony should be told to stop. - brenneman 10:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Userpages

1) A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within reason (e.g. Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks). However, Misplaced Pages is not a hosting service, and you should generally avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Misplaced Pages. (See Misplaced Pages:Userpage.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2. --Tony Sidaway 03:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Recreated content

2) If a deleted page, image or template is reproduced under the same or a different name anywhere on Misplaced Pages either with the intention of, or with the end result of, the new item being used in the same way as the deleted item, it may be treated as a recreation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Use common sense. Recreating a template in userspace with the intention that people will use it in exactly the same way as the original, is just the same as recreating it in template space. --Tony Sidaway 03:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) See this edit showing that Crotalus (using his User:Userboxes account) was replacing links to deleted templates on userpages other than his own with links to the recreated templates. --Tony Sidaway 06:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• I'm a bit confused by this, in the case cited above Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2 it seems to read that ArbComm found that the recreation of deleted articlespace content in userspace was in fact, OK. Did I misinterpret that? If I interpreted it correctly it would seem to support the notion that something deemed unsuitable for templatespace might nevertheless be OK in userspace if it passed the test of what is OK in userspace (that is, it doesn't have to be OK for templatespace, just userspace), contradicting this proposed principle. ++Lar: t/c 04:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Second accounts

3) Creating a second account for a given class of edits does not itself constitute sockpuppet abuse. However, it does not give an editor free rein to use that account abusively.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ciz --Tony Sidaway 04:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Jimbo as the ultimate authority

4) Jimbo Wales has ultimate authority on Wikimedia projects, as a foundation issue that is beyond debate. Though he is in many contexts an ordinary user whose edits and administrative actions are subject to change or reversal per normal community processes, when Jimbo acts with ultimate authority as project leader, every community member is expected and obliged to comply with his decisions, though discussion, criticism and request for reversal is permitted.

The Board of Trustees is empowered to review such decisions by Jimbo. Users who act in deliberate defiance of an authoritative action by Jimbo are subject to sanctions, including banning and desysopping, particularly temporary ("emergency") desysopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. --Tony Sidaway 04:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Crotalus horridus' recreation of userboxes

1) On February 6th, 2006, in response to a debate on a proposed policy to place userbox templates in userspace, Crotalus created a user account User:Userboxes and announced this on Misplaced Pages talk:Use of userboxes. The account remained dormant until February 11th-12th, when Crotalus used the account to perform recreations in userspace of the templates Template:User Anti-UN, Template:User Anti-ACLU, and Template:User admins_ignoring_policy, which had been deleted a few hours before by User:Physchim62 (UN, ACLU) and User:Tony Sidaway (Admins) under the new T1 "inflammatory and divisive" speedy deletion criterion.

He also created userspace copies of Template:User freedom, Template:User m1911, and Template:User anti-fascism, which at that time had not been deleted. Crotalus replaced transclusions of deleted templates in several userpages with the newly created templates , having the intended effect of restoring the userboxes to their former use.

Early on February 12, Silence (talk · contribs) also recreated copies of two deleted templates, Template:User antiatheist and Template:User antiatheist2, which has been deleted under the T1 criterion by Physchim62 and MarkSweep. (see evidence page). Like Crotalus he updated transclusion links of deleted templates to point to the new copies , .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The core events. --Tony Sidaway 09:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tony Sidaway's statement on draft RfC

2) Tony Sidway made a statement that he would not delete user boxes not restore any articles for the month of February.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is absolutely false. I gave no such undertaking. --Tony Sidaway 07:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Just a statement of fact. - brenneman 06:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, can we see a diff on this? Once we can see what he said, this statement can be clarified. -- SCZenz 08:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Now at 2.2 below. - brenneman 10:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway ceases disputed activities for over a week

2.1) On February 1, in response to concerns expressed, Tony Sidaway announced that he would "lay off DRV for a bit" , which included stopping temporary undeletions of articles under discussion and stopping deletions of templates. He did not perform any of these operations for over a week, while maintaining that they were not abusive in any way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just a statement of fact. Not relevant to the proceedings of course, but needed here to set the facts straight. --Tony Sidaway 07:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tony Sidaway says he will stop disputed activities for a month

2.2) On February 1, in response to concerns expressed, Tony Sidaway announced that he would:

• Lay off DRV for a bit
• Stop deleting templates
• Stop undeleting deleted articles

He added: "Then we'll review that in a month's time to see how everybody feels." .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It still falsely states that I said that I would stop deleting stuff for a month, which is preposterous. Removing the word "pledged" doesn't help at all, since I didn't say (and certainly didn't intend any meaning remotely close to) what it claims I said, 2.1, states the facts, 2 and 2.2 are fiction. In any case I've still to see where this is supposed to lead us in the current case. --Tony Sidaway 10:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Okay, I changed "pledged to" to "says he will". Haukur 09:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm completely confused. I took your comment to mean that you'd stop deleting templates for a month and I thought that was a very mature and helpful decision. It seems that Crotalus and Aaron took it that way too. Now you're saying that this understanding is "preposterous". What did you mean, then? Haukur 09:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway deletes the cloned and recreated userboxes

3) At 10:30, 12 February, Netoholic (talk · contribs) announced on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard that Crotalus had created the account as "an end run around deletion process". Tony Sidaway checked the userspace search listing given by Netoholic and, noting that the account contained clones of existing userbox templates and recreations of others, deleted them all between 10:32 and 10:40.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Straightforward. Documented on evidence page. --Tony Sidaway 08:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The T1 speedy deletion criterion

4) On February 6th, sannse (talk · contribs) added a new criterion for speedy deletion: "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." This was reverted twice by Crotalus horridus who said in an edit summary "Speedy deleting userboxes is much more disruptive than letting them stay. Nor was there any consensus for this criteria change", but supported by Physchim62 (talk · contribs) and Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs). The latter said, in words that were interpreted as making the new criterion official policy: "At least for a little bit, I advise everyone to chill about this. Let's take some time to reflect on this issue as a community. That means: don't make any crazy userboxes designed to try to trip this rule, and don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist. A thoughtful process of change is important. And whatever you do, do NOT wheel war about this." . The new criterion was discussed and found broad acceptance as an edict from Jimbo acting in the interests of the encyclopedia ,, ,, , about a dozen administrators have performed deletions on this criterion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Policy was accepted widely, though perhaps a little grudgingly. --Tony Sidaway 09:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The Userboxes account was used to circumvent deletion of templates

5) Crotalus' used the userboxes account to circumvent the deletion of templates by providing functionally identical replacements in userspace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Follows from earlier findings. --Tony Sidaway 09:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Crotalus horridus vehemently opposes the T1 speedy deletion criterion

6) Crotalus horridus has opposed the T1 speedy deletion criterion from its inception, reverting Sanne's original edit twice in less than half an hour on February 6 shortly after it was added . and once again removing the criterion altogether on February 12 .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Establishes Crotalus' animus and motive for performing his actions. --Tony Sidaway 11:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: