This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Giano II (talk | contribs) at 20:59, 27 November 2007 (→Private correspondence: (especially if they incriminate members of the Arbcom)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 11 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Assume good faith

1) Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those with whom they have had conflicts in the past.

Support:

1. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
7. jpgordon 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Paul August ☎ 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Private correspondence

2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Misplaced Pages:Copyrights. (especially if they incriminate members of the Arbcom)

Support:

1. It's worth noting that Foundation counsel endorses this position. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
4. It saddens me that we have to point this out. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
7. jpgordon 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I have reservations about this. Paul August ☎ 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Responsibility

3) Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner. If a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee. This does not apply to users carrying out official tasks as authorized by the Foundation or the Committee (including, but not limited to, CheckUser, OverSight, and OTRS activity).

Support:

1. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
7. jpgordon 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Paul August ☎ 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

4) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct — including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system — is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Support:

1. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
7. jpgordon 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Paul August ☎ 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Chilling effect

5) Administrators are expected to act in a reasonable and transparent manner. Even when reversed, administrative actions that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Misplaced Pages.

Support:

1. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
7. jpgordon 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
8. With exceptions, as listed above in the section "Responsibility". There are some occasions where there cannot be total transparency. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Paul August ☎ 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Removal of private correspondence

6) Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee.

Support:

1. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 17:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
5. I think this is basically what happens most of the time now so we are not making policy but instead confirming that we agree with it. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
7. jpgordon 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Return of access levels

7) 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 controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion.

Support:

1. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Kirill 01:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
5. jpgordon 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Paul August ☎ 20:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC) To be clear though, clearly these circumstances were controversial.

Oppose:

Abstain:

Blocking

8) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective; prior discussion or warnings should generally precede all blocks. Blocks should be used only to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, and if there could be any reasonable doubt about whether a block is appropriate, other administrators and/or the community should be consulted. Following a block, the blocked editor should be notified of the block on their talk page, and additional notification on site may be appropriate to seek community input.

Support:

1. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC) (As proposed by Mackensen on the workshop page.)
2. Of course. Mackensen (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Durova

0.1) Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has edited Misplaced Pages since October 2005 and has been an administrator since October 17, 2006. In addition to contributing content, she has been active with respect to dispute resolution issues, including active participation at the former community sanctions noticeboard, proposing and overseeing the community enforceable mediation process, and providing useful input in arbitration cases.

Support:

1. Paul August ☎ 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC) (As proposed by Newyorkbrad on the workshop page.)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Durova's block of User:!!

0.2) On November 18, 2007, Durova announced on WP:ANI that she had indefinitely blocked !! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a disruptive sockpuppet, stating that the grounds for the block could not be discussed on-wiki and that any appeal must be routed to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Paul August ☎ 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC) (As proposed by Newyorkbrad on the workshop page.)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Evaluation of the block

1) The evidence compiled by Durova, viewed as individual items and as a whole, was insufficient to justify blocking !! (talk · contribs) or taking any other action against him. It was not reasonable for an administrator to block !! or take any other action based on this evidence, nor was the block justified by any other available evidence.

Support:

1. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 14:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
6. After adoption of Newyorkbrad's suggestion Fred Bauder (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Likewise. --jpgordon 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Paul August ☎ 20:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I don't like the language "No reasonable administrator", but certainly there was error. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Agree with Fred. --jpgordon 05:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)