| Revision as of 17:57, 4 October 2006 editRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits →Resysopping← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:58, 4 October 2006 edit undoRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits →A mixed systemNext edit → | ||
| Line 351: | Line 351: | ||
| :Oppose: | :Oppose: | ||
| :# ] 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC) - I see this princple, combined with principle #25 (productive editors can be banned) as an attempt to retroactively justify the emergence of a class of administrators who rarely or never edit articles. |
:# ] 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC) - I see this princple, combined with principle #25 (productive editors can be banned) as an attempt to retroactively justify the emergence of a class of administrators who rarely or never edit articles. Given how some of our most productive users were treated during this case (and in the light of Ambi's observations on the arbitration mailing list), I think this principle is not just a bad idea but downright dangarous to the creation of an encyclopedia. | ||
| :Abstain: | :Abstain: | ||
Revision as of 17:58, 4 October 2006
all proposed
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.
- 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 they 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, 2 Arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 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:
Template
1) {text of proposed orders}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Requests for adminship
1) Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who becomes an administrator, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship. "Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here", "Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions",Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship#About_RfB.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Bureaucrats
2) Bureaucrats are bound by policy and current consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community, usually after a successful request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship.....They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions upon request and in a civil manner., Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Consensus
3) Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority, a guideline provides, "If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Misplaced Pages community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached." "Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision", Consensus decision-making.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Advantages of consensus
4) "Because it seeks to minimize objection, it is popular with voluntary organizations, wherein decisions are more likely to be carried out when they are most widely approved. Consensus methods are desirable when enforcement of the decision is unfeasible, such that every participant will be required to act on the decision independently." Consensus_decision-making#Purpose.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Problems with consensus
5) Consensus requires patience and experience and in some cases may not work at all, see Consensus#Drawbacks and Consensus_decision-making#Criticisms.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
The effect of failure of consensus
6) Failure of consensus in a difficult case does not abrogate Misplaced Pages:Consensus as the optimal method of making decisions in a way which maximizes support for decision.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Administrator conduct
7) Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Misplaced Pages. Administrators must be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Second chances
8) Users who have violated policies in the past will be forgiven, restrictions will be removed, and privileges and responsibilities restored if there is substantial evidence that violations will not be repeated.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Decisions are final
9) In the absence of a successful appeal or reconsideration, a decision by the Bureaucrats such as the closing of a Request for Adminship is final.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Appeal of a decision by Bureaucrats
10) A decision such as the closing of a Request for Adminship may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Such an appeal can consider whether the policies which govern the closing of Requests for Adminship have been followed.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Criticism welcome
11) Criticism of administrative, arbitration, and bureaucratic decisions is welcome.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Being upset
12) Within limits, it is acceptable to be upset at a decision or a situation which provokes strong emotion, to blow off steam.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Misplaced Pages is not a battleground
13) Misplaced Pages is not a battleground brands campaigns of political struggle as inappropriate activity.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Disruption
14) Users who engage in sustained disruption of Misplaced Pages by engaging in inappropriate activity may be blocked temporarily by administrators or banned by the Arbitration Committee, or Jimbo. The community has made it abundantly clear, over the course of many discussions that they do not feel it is appropriate to "troll" on Misplaced Pages, or to engage in disruptive behaviour. While there is some dissent over method of enforcement, and over whether individual Wikipedians are or are not engaging in "trolling", there is little or no dissent over this underlying principle.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Disruption by administrators
15) Sustained disruption of Misplaced Pages is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Return to administrative status of desysopped administrators
16) Experience has shown that having engaged in bad behavior in the past, it may be difficult for a reformed administrator to pass Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship due to the requirement for consensus. In some instances, it is better for requests for restoration of administrative status to be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee rather than submitted to RfA. In exceptional cases a reformed administrator may be resysopped despite a failed RfA.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Courtesy
17) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous and respectful to other users and avoid personal attacks.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Assume good faith
18) Users are expected to adopt a convention of assuming good faith when dealing with other users. This precludes derogation of other users based on their status or the tasks they perform.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Discussion of controversial decisions
19) If a controversial decision is made extended discussion is to be expected. This discussion may include strong statements of opposition. Those who made or support controversial decisions should be prepared to patiently and courteously explain and support the decision. Attempts to prematurely close the discussion are ill-advised.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Productive policy discussion differentiated from trolling
20) Lengthy policy discussions need to be productive. Discussions which consist of head-butting and tendentious repetition of fixed positions are not productive. Participation in such discussions, if they cannot be turned to productive dialog, is a waste of time. Those who prolong sterile discussion are violating Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Baiting
21) Baiting or harassing of other users as a tactic of political struggle is disruptive.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Taking the bait
22) It is disruptive if a user, especially an administrator, habitually responds in an emotional manner to provocative material.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
A mixed system
23) Misplaced Pages is owned and controlled by the non-profit WikiMedia Foundation. It utilizes a vast number of volunteers who perform nearly all editing and administrative duties. The administrative duties include limited bureaucratic processes, and a quasi-judicial dispute resolution structure. Status within the volunteer component is achieved in a variety of way, excellent editing being one, sensible and effective discharge of administrative duties being another. In general, decision making looks to consensus, although exceptions are frequently made in appropriate circumstance if they serve the interest of the project, building a reliable and extensive reference work.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Raul654 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC) - I see this princple, combined with principle #25 (productive editors can be banned) as an attempt to retroactively justify the emergence of a class of administrators who rarely or never edit articles. Given how some of our most productive users were treated during this case (and in the light of Ambi's observations on the arbitration mailing list), I think this principle is not just a bad idea but downright dangarous to the creation of an encyclopedia.
- Abstain:
Respect
24) The volunteers which do the work on Misplaced Pages include a diverse group of editors, copyeditors, fact checkers, administrators, and many other specialized pursuits. All are entitled to respect, including those who hold formal positions of "power". Struggle for political power directed at other users is grossly inappropriate and disruptive.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Blocking of administrators and other wheels for disruption
25) Administrators and other high status users, including productive editors, who seriously disrupt Misplaced Pages may be briefly blocked. In extreme cases they may be desysopped or banned.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Per my objection to #23. Raul654 17:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain:
Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee
26) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over behavior disputes. This includes whether users have conformed to policies and guidelines. Issues which involve the behavior of the Arbitrators themselves and those closely associated with them present difficulties but remain our responsibility, see this comment by Ghirlandajo for a contrary view.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Return of access levels
27) Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave "under a cloud" of problems. User who do leave under a cloud must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under a cloud is, in most cases, to be left up to bureacrats' discretion.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Carnildo
1) Carnildo was desysopped as the result of the decision in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Carnildo. After continuing in good faith to make valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages he was re-nominated for administrator with the support of the Arbitration Committee.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Resysopping
2) Difficulty may arise in instances where an administrator who has been desysopped by the Arbitration Committee makes a request for adminship (RfA). They would not have been desysopped if they had not engaged in some serious bad behavior. Due to the requirement that consensus is required by the community to grant adminship, unresolved past offenses can retard development of consensus despite willingness by the former administrator to reform. The Arbitration Committee is aware of this difficulty, but is caught in a quandary: something needs to be done in the case of administrators who violate basic policies, but it is unwise to permanently lose the services of valuable volunteers if they are willing to reform. The alternative to subjecting the former administrator to an RfA is review of the decision to desysop them. Please see this insightful comment by Metamagician3000 and this by Deathphoenix. There is evidence that in most instances RfA functions well enough, see evidence presented by Radiant!.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3
3) The request for adminship made by Carnildo, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 had strong support, including support votes from some of the arbitrators who had desysopped him. There was also a great deal of opposition including strong opposition from those he had blocked for "hate speech".
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Failure to achieve consensus
4) Due to strong opposition to Carnildo's RfA there was a failure to reach consensus, see analysis by Richardshusr, analysis by Tim Smith, and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Essjay#Questions_for_the_candidate and discussion above regarding supermajority.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Closing of Carnildo's request for adminship
5) Carnildo was nominated for adminship on 18 August 2006 and on 5 September 2006 he was promoted. Six minutes later the bureaucrat who closed the request, User:Taxman, gave a full description of the decision and said that bureaucrats User:Danny, User:Rdsmith4 and he himself had decided, on the belief that Carnildo's desysopping in February "was meant as a temporary measure, a cooling off period" to "reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom." .
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Opposition to closing of RfA
6) Following the closing of Carnildo's request for admin considerable criticism was expressed concerning both the novel 2 month probationary period granted and the closeness of the poll, Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/archive3#Making_it_up_as_you_go_along, User_talk:Carnildo#Resign_your_adminship, and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_68#Carnildo.27s_re-promotion.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Giano's role in opposing the decision
7) Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had legitimate reasons to oppose Carnilo's RfA, having been one of the victims of Carnilo's hasty and ill-considered blocks. He continued after the decision to vigorously oppose it stating, "Before you even begin to tell me to think of forgiveness and people being deserving of a second chance, just remember this: Carnildo has never once expressed regret or remorse let alone apologised."
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
John Reid's role in opposing the decision
8) John_Reid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, posting a demand that each Bureaucrat declare their adherence to consensus "call for statement of fealty"; a few courteous responses were made by Bureaucrats. The course of the discussion on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard with diffs is at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings_of_fact#Bureaucrats.27_noticeboard. A portion of the interchange is archived at Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/John Reid. Of note is repeated baiting of the other participants in the discussion .
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Kelly Martin
9) Kelly_Martin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a former Arbitrator with a long record of devoted service to Misplaced Pages, vigorously defended the decision , citing the support of the Arbitration Committee during discussions on the Arbcom-l mailing list. Her defense included the unfortunate language, "I applaud these three bureaucrats for having the moxie to break from the stifling expectations of the pseudoconsensus that typically erupts from any given Request for Adminship and instead evaluate the broader picture and make a decision that reflects more than merely the shifting moods of a fickle and ill-informed populace." Following hectoring of Kelly Martin by those who opposed the decision Kelly Martin left the Arbcom-l mailing list and resigned her administrative, checkuser, and oversight roles, see User_talk:Kelly_Martin/Archives/2006_September#Quite_enough.2C_thank_you.21.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Tony Sidaway
10) Tony Sidaway took upon himself the burden of fielding criticism of the decision, in two instances briefly blocking vociferous objectors. He participated aggressively in the various forums which discussed the issue, often responding undiplomatically and aggressively . His role as clerk of the Arbitration Committee aggravated his offenses. He was blocked by the community for 24 hours and requested by the Arbitration Committee to resign as clerk, see User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2006_09_24#Community_block_of_Tony_Sidaways_is_hereby_proposed discussion of block which also contains his consistent defense of undiplomatic response to provocation User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2006_09_24#Loaded_words.
- Support:
- Fred Bauder 13:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Raul654 17:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC) - I altered the above slightly to remove the "When baited" part
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Giano
11) In addition to opposing Carnildo's RfA , Giano vigorously protested its favorable closing, posting a series of over the top comments which condemned Misplaced Pages's power structure as corrupt . Placed in the context of the comments of other objectors to the decision Giano's comments, while inflammatory, do not stand out. Giano then, aided by a few others, entered on a campaign of political struggle based on a theme of institutional oppression .
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Giano II
12) Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in frustration, destroyed his access to his account, after what he viewed as an inadequate response by the Arbitration Committee to Tony Sidaway's actions ; he now edits as Giano_II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It has been suggested that his access to his original account be restored and that the comment regarding "hate speech" be expunged from the block log of Giano.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
JoshuaZ
13) JoshuaZ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Tony Sidaway for 24 hours giving this justification, the diff mentioned is this comment by Tony Sidaway. Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy does not specifically provide for a block of this nature, but it was accepted by Tony Sidaway, see User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2006_09_24#Community_block_of_Tony_Sidaways_is_hereby_proposed_discussion_of_block for an extended discussion of the block.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Geogre
14) Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has engaged in an extensive political struggle based on the position that the administrative structure of Misplaced Pages is oppressing those who do the editing. This is expressed in a wide variety of forums, see Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive#Admins_who_don.27t_edit_articles for extensive expressions of his viewpoint and this for a particular expression.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Irpen
15) Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) called for a 1-3 day block of Tony Sidaway . This was discussed at length and ultimately done. Although an extreme action, it had sufficient basis and was made in an appropriate forum.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Jdforrester
16) Jdforrester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an Arbitrator, erred by intruding into the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard with an edit with the section heading "You're all idiots". Although the content of the comment was intended to be helpful, it had the effect of throwing gasoline on a fire.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {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.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Carnildo restored to Administrative status
1) Exercising our continuing jurisdiction in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Carnildo effective September 5, 2006 Carnildo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is restored to Administrative status, subject to review by the Arbitration Committee in November, 2006.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
John Reid is banned for one week
2) John Reid is banned for one week for violations of Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, baiting the Bureaucrats with his oath of fealty.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Kelly Martin thanked
3) Kelly Martin is thanked for her long and honorable service.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Tony Sidaway suspended
4) Tony Sidaway's administrative privileges are suspended for one month due to failure to respond appropriately to legitimate distress by other users.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Raul654 14:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC) - See alternate proposal 4A
- Abstain:
Tony Sidaway's sysop access
4A) Per principle #27 ("Return of access levels") the Arbitration Committee finds that Tony Sideway gave up his sysop access under cloud and must get them back through the normal RFA channels.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Giano II
5) Giano II may, if developers cooperate , be restored to access to the account Giano, and the block log of that account may be modified to remove any reference to "hate speech". He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance, more light, less heat.
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Geogre desysopped
6) Geogre's administrative privileges are suspended indefinitely. They may only be restored by action of the Arbitration Committee. This is based on disruption resulting from sustained aggressive political campaigning. Continuing violations of Misplaced Pages is not a battleground are incompatible with administrative status.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Absolutely not. None of the evidence justifies this at all. Why is this even proposed? Raul654 14:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain:
Jdforrester reminded
7) Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Kelly Martin's sysop/checkuser/oversight access
8) Per principle #27 ("Return of access levels") the Arbitration Committee finds that Kelly Martin gave up her sysop, checkuser, and oversight access under cloud and must get them back through the normal RFA channels.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Discussion by Arbitrators
General
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.
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.