This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jdforrester (talk | contribs) at 22:42, 2 October 2005 (→Alternate proposal - SV temporarily desysopped: Yes, but ...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:42, 2 October 2005 by Jdforrester (talk | contribs) (→Alternate proposal - SV temporarily desysopped: Yes, but ...)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)all proposed
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 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, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 4 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 the discussion page.
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:
Scope of remedies with respect to administrators
1) Misplaced Pages:Administrators are trusted members of the community who have access to certain commands not available to an ordinary Misplaced Pages user. They are held to high standards. If use of those commands are abused an administrator may be removed from that status, or a lesser penalty may be imposed, see administrator abuse.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Use of administrator powers with respect to a dispute you are engaged in
2) It is inappropriate to use your powers as a Misplaced Pages administrator with respect to a dispute you are personally involved in.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
Abuses by Stevertigo
1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) while in the course of an edit war at Vietnam War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) during which he violated the Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule and edited a protected page to conform to his version , was blocked . He used his power as an administrator to unblock himself a number of times , blocked one of the administrators who was blocking him .
- 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:
Stevertigo to be reaffirmed as an administrator
1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) shall submit himself as a candidate for administrator at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship. If his request is supported by the community he shall continue as an administrator, otherwise he shall be removed. The request for adminship shall contain a link to the decision in this matter Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo.
- Support:
- This seems best. James F. (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Fred Bauder 14:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- I prefer 1.1 →Raul654 03:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- So do I Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Alternate proposal - SV temporarily desysopped
1.1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) is warned in the strongest terms not to abuse his sysop powers. He is to be desysopped for two months. At the end of the two months, his sysop powers are to be restored.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- We shouldn't try to say that actively taking away his powers, instead of asking the community's opinion, is in any way a less strong remedy. James F. (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it a stronger/less stong remedy. I think it's a fairer one. It is our responsibility to impose remedies on admins who abuse their powers. Asking the community to reaffirm adminship is shirking that responsibility IMO. Also asking the community to do it is too black and white. The community can either say "yes you can still be an admin" which let's him off scott free and sends a message that it's ok to abuse admin powers, or it can say "no you cannot be an admin" which is too severe for me and may well be too severe for many but they have no other choice if they don't want to let him off without any punishment. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- We shouldn't try to say that actively taking away his powers, instead of asking the community's opinion, is in any way a less strong remedy. James F. (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but we massively prejudice the community vote by suspending his priviledges. James F. (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- 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.