This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InkSplotch (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 6 February 2006 (→Wheel war over Joeyramoney's block). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Request for temporary injunction

1) I request that User:David Gerard be temporarily desysopped pending a decision from the Arbitration Committee on this case, as many other admins involved have been desysopped as well, and Jimbo Wales seems to have overlooked him. —BorgHunter (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

David Gerard was one of the admins who brought the matter to Jimbo's attention. Since Jimbo clearly did not "overlook" him, the obvious implication is that Jimbo has an conscious reason why he did not feel David needed to be included in the emergency desysopping. ➥the Epopt 15:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't believe this is necessary. David | Talk 13:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it was necessary to temporarily desysop anyone, as the issue rather died once Jimbo deleted the template himself. However, if it's to be done, it should be applied equally and fairly. —BorgHunter (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

and User talk:David Gerard#Warning_level_2.3B_Blanking. - David Gerard 13:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. Unless I'm mistaken, DG protected the deleted article after Jimbo deleted it, so David was following process as he saw it because the userbox would likely be recreated. --Deathphoenix 14:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Per the delete log, I deleted 'user pedophile' once (on a basis of "wtf? DIE!") and recreated and protected it blank (to discourage recreation) and deleted 'user paedophile' once (as the explicit evasion of the previous deletion it was). After Jimbo deleted both, I recreated and protected both blank (to discourage recreation) - David Gerard 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for unblock of Joeyramoney

2) Less of an "injunction" than a request that Joeyramoney (talk · contribs) be unblocked pending this RFAr and/or with the understanding that his actions were not trollish or worthy of a weeklong block. This seems like nothing more than a new user caught in the middle of something they didn't expect. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think this may serve as a good lesson to him. Kind of like getting hit by a car while playing on the freeway. Fred Bauder 17:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The reason for the week long block by Jimbo is: blatant trolling http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_5&diff=prev&oldid=38350734 .

Of his contributions that do not relate to the Pedophilia userbox, none are trolling and all article and article talk edits appear to be good contributions (the only fault I can find with his editing is that he could do with marking minor edits as such - not worthy of a block). His comments on his talk page appear that he wasn't being serious, was unaware of the furore he is at the centre of, has removed the offending template and appologised. IMHO I feel that the block is excessive and support User:Locke Cole's request. Thryduulf 14:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this may have been a premature blocking. Ral315 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I support Locke Cole's request per Thryduulf. It seems like a Misplaced Pages version of a moral panic to me. David | Talk 14:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

With help from Curps' bot,I blocked further accounts (presumably) of his (Joeyramoney5 etc), for ban evasion, but I do agree that the original blocking was not necessarily warranted. I support this call. NSLE _(T+C) 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I also support this unblocking and again note that the original block was only removed after a strong consensus to do so had been reached at WP:AN. --CBD _☎ 15:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I did reinstate Jimbo's block a few seconds before he did, after reviewing this information, the fact that he has 16 and it was therefore an ironic joke (not funny though), and that he made edits like these , suggest that he was just a new user adding some useful edits. After discussing this with Locke, I also request that his block be lifted.Voice of All 15:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly concur with this request. He did no wrong. —Nightstallion (?) 16:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, can we unblock him now while it may still do some good? It's one thing to bite the newbies, it's another to swallow them whole :) - Haukur 17:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that he "did nothing wrong" as some suggest, since even if it was intended as a joke (i.e. AGF) then it was in very poor taste and clearly inappropriate in my mind. However, there is a larger failing in the system here. We should have been able to say, "Hey newbie, pedophilia user boxes are inappropriate. We are deleting it, please don't try to put it back". At which point, if he goes along, there is no cause for any block. Instead, we whacked him around in a manner that was clearly punitive rather than protective of Misplaced Pages. If this is the metaphorical equivalent of hitting him with a car for playing on the freeway, then I suspect he's already got the point to not do it again. Let's pick the guy up, dust him off, and try to make a decent impression on him. I support lifting the block. Dragons flight 17:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, a good way to proceed with the car accident analogy. As for whether or not he did anything wrong, well... Guy comes into our site - sees a lot of people have funny stickers on their pages. Finds our stickers shop. Picks those that appeal to him. Sticks'em on his page. Gets thrown out of town. Maybe his sense of humor is off but he was clearly proceeding in good faith to make use of what he saw—very reasonably—as facilities offered by the site. The problem is in our stickers shop - not in our newest customers. - Haukur 19:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yet we often don't. There are multiple examples of this, but i'll cut to the point and submit Kelly Martin's RFC and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Autobiography, since Jimbo himself has broken that rule multiple times. If Jimbo, who should be the penultimate Wikipedian, the Wikipedian we all look up to, breaks policies -- why should anyone follow any policies? Karmafist 17:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Of course, however, the mistakes you're "allowed" to make seem corrolary to your status on Misplaced Pages. How many mistakes would someone of Raul's status have to make, or for that matter, Jimbo himself? When do you reach the point where someone's judgement is beyond oversight? Karmafist 17:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• I would say an egregiously poor single admin action might justify desysopping, in certain circumstances, especially if it was done in clear defiance of consensus. David | Talk 12:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Users may not be blocked for unpopular opinions

5) Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy provides that users may be blocked for repeated vandalism but not under current policy for disruptive editing although such a policy is proposed. Nor may users be blocked for unpopular opinions. Editing under multiple accounts when their "main" account is not blocked is not grounds for blocking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Absolutely, but I fear that this will not be enforced. Karmafist 17:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Amen. I'd venture to say that the success of the NPOV philosophy rests on the proper enforcement of this principle. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something about "countering systemic bias" should be mentioned here? --AySz88^-^ 18:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Civility

6) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Intimidation

7) Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy. All users are encouraged to remove personal attacks on sight.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dispute resolution

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks

9) No personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Provocation

10) Misplaced Pages editors must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Userspace

11) A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within reason (e.g. Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks). Generally, you should avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Misplaced Pages. (See Misplaced Pages:User page.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wheel warring

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would change "bad form" to unacceptable. Once you realize administrators have a divided opinion conflicting administrative actions need to stop and the process of decision making and dispute resolution needs to begin Fred Bauder 15:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Prominently featured at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes is the text: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. Fred Bauder 15:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

While there is general agreement it's bad form, there are no clear guidelines on when an admin should revert the actions of another admin, or when they should not, or when they must not. I think mis-judging these categories is one of the main problems that has happened over the unfortunate template. If we can clear this up it will be a great step forward. The Land 14:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if a guideline (rather than a policy) regarding this were to emerge from/as a result of this case then this would be a Good Thing. Thryduulf 14:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" would roughly split the difference between "unacceptable", which is pretty strong, and "bad form", which sounds like it's out of a comedy routine. --Michael Snow 16:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Decision making and dispute resolution

13) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Prominently featured at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes is the text: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. Fred Bauder 15:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages is open to all

14) Permission to edit Misplaced Pages is in no way dependent on an editor's race, religious belief, political affiliation, status of criminal accusation, conviction, or confinement, sex, or sexual preference.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Feel free to add other qualities we don't care about. ➥the Epopt 15:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This might go a bit far and is actually untrue, we have consistently run Nazis off. Fred Bauder 17:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Could we elaborate on this a little to the effect of: ", provided that the editor's actions remain consistent with the goal and purpose of building an encyclopedia." or something similar. I'd like to be explicit that community tolerance is not an excuse or invitation for engaging in divisive, hateful or bigoted ideologies. Dragons flight 18:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps add "...as long as these aspects do not affect their editing of the encyclopedia" or "...effect violation of other policies"? --AySz88^-^ 18:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is open to all

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ashibaka has wheel warred

1) Ashibaka (talk · contribs · logs) has wheel warred over the deletion of {{User pedophile}} and {{User paedophile}}.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Carbonite, et al advocated banning pedophiles

2) Carbonite (talk · contribs), El C (talk · contribs), and Giano (talk · contribs) have advocated a permanent ban of all confessed pedophiles from Misplaced Pages, with comments such as "Block on sight. No quarter," and "Those that state even in jest that this is their orientation should be banned permanently."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Definitely inapropriate behaviour. Pedophiles are still people, and Misplaced Pages is not a children's site. Any possible POV pushing by them should be handled with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. --Phroziac _. o º 14:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Jimbo has said "They said that pedophiles should be banned from editing Misplaced Pages. That's a very respectable position."—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I stand behind my statement 100%. I do advocate the permanent banning of all admitted pedophiles from Misplaced Pages. Carbonite 18:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Carbonite blocked Joeyramoney

3) Carbonite blocked Joeyramoney (talk · contribs · logs) (for an indefinite period of time) for adding {{User pedophile}} to his userpage. This block is not covered by Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy, as implicitly admitted by Carbonite.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Sounded good at the time, run all the pedophiles off. But all that was caught was a user with a fetish for user boxes. Fred Bauder 13:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Block rationale () indicates Carbonite's block of Joey was based upon Carbonite's moral beliefs rather than Joey's actions. This is inappropriate admin behavior. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:24, Feb. 6, 2006

• Joey's action was to add the "pedophilia" userbox to his user page. I saw this as disruptive. My message on his talk page was "I've blocked you indefinitely for the inclusion of Template:User pedophile." The block was indefinite, as in "not defined", as opposed to "infinite". I stated on WP:AN that "If it is a joke, then the user should be unblocked, with a warning to use better judgement in the future." Just wanted to clarify these points.Carbonite 18:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Paroxysm created the userboxes

4) Paroxysm created {{User pedophile}} and {{User paedophile}}, the purpose of the latter being to "sidestep admin abuse". (; admins only)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Joeyramoney added the userbox in jest

5) Joeyramoney added {{User pedophile}} to his userpage in jest, as evidenced by userboxes of a similar nature on his userpage, see also .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The joke was made in poor taste, but that's irrelvant. It was a joke, what should have been done was to ask him to stop using it rather than the kneejerk reaction that ensued. Karmafist 17:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Absolutely agree with this. I think the weeklong block is overkill. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This was still a joke made with very poor taste. Joey should be warned to be more careful about this in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phroziac (talk • contribs) 14:59, February 6, 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo blocked Carbonite, et al

6) Carnildo (talk · contribs · logs) blocked Carbonite, El C, and Giano indefinitely for their advocacy of banning confessed pedophiles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The Land unblocked Carbonite, et al

7) The Land (talk · contribs) undid Carnildo's blocks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

El C retaliated

8) El C blocked Carnildo for 24 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The Land unblocked Carnildo

9) The Land unblocked Carnildo soon after.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jimbo desysoped wheel warriors

10) Jimbo desysoped some of the admins involved, who he considered to be wheel warring. These admins are Carnildo, Karmafist (talk · contribs · logs), El C, BorgHunter (talk · contribs · logs) and Ashibaka.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I changed 'most' to 'some' above... of the admins involved in the Joeyramoney block and pedophile templates deletion 5 were desysoped and 8 were not. --CBD _☎ 17:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

El C attempted to intimidate Carnildo

11) El C made an apparent attempt to intimidate on Carnildo's talk page: "You must immediately cease from inciting hate speech against children, or I will do everything in my power to have you removed from Misplaced Pages indefinitely."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wheel war over Joeyramoney's block

12) Radiant! (talk · contribs · logs) undid Carbonite's indefinite block of Joeyramoney, but the block was reinstated at one week by Jimbo based on his opinion that this edit by Joeyramoney was "blatant trolling". Karmafist (talk · contribs · logs) reunblocked, but the block was redone at one week by both Voice of All (talk · contribs) and Jimbo at the same time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Jimbo's comment related to a keep vote at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_5#Template:User_paedophile Fred Bauder 15:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This sets yet another frightening precedent, considering Jimbo violated WP:AGF and WP:BITE in the middle of his insertion into the Wheel War, in what I can only assume is likely an attempt to avoid this incident from getting to the mainstream press1, which is fairly irrelevant since at our current rate, there will be another controversy in a few weeks. Karmafist 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Given my comment at Joeyramoney added the userbox in jest, I think it's obvious I think Jimbo got this way wrong. I could see blocking for 24 hours just to sort things out, but a week for a teenager who obviously had no idea what he was getting in to? You can't really blame Radiant! or Karmafist for unblocking... —Locke Cole • t • c 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Locke Cole. While I understand that Jimbo was (quite rightly) probably more than a little pissed off at the wheel warring, I beleive that unblocking user:Joeyramoney was right - unlike the other unblockings. Thryduulf 14:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that this unblocking was proper and note that Radiant acted only after a strong consensus to do so had been reached on WP:AN. --CBD _☎ 15:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I made a minor update to add block durations, in clarification of the facts. I do this in light of current disputes as to the proper length of block that Joeyramoney "should" be under. InkSplotch 19:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

13) Beginning with this post by Carbonite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) an extended discussion was held on the topic of blocking self-identified pedophiles Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Blocking_self-identified_pedophiles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Admins who were not desysopped

14) Admins who reverted the actions of other admins in this dispute who were not desysopped by Jimbo were: Radiant, Doc glasgow, David Gerard, MarkSweep, Physchim62, The Land and Jimbo Wales himself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've added myself to the list above. The Land 16:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Note that in adding this I make no claims that any of these are more/less deserving of desysopping than the other list above, I just think it is important to have a complete list of everyone who took part to compare when judging the actions of those who were desysoped. Carbonite is not listed because he placed the original block on Joeyramoney, but did not revert the action of any other admin. Marksweep and Violetriga are included not because they performed the original deletes of the two 'pedophile templates', but because they then also reverted recreation of them by other admins. --CBD _☎ 15:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales was Wheel Warring

15) Under Misplaced Pages:Wheel war, a Wheel War is when two or more admins counter each others' administrative actions. Jimbo has administrative privledges, and he has countered the administrative actions of Karmafist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Radiant (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Although I can't expect, but only hope, the arbcom will rule fairly towards this, Jimbo is not better or worse than the rest of us after inserting himself into this discussion. If we're not bound by the law, then nobody is -- and we're at the top of things here, how will people at the bottom act when they see us acting like this? Karmafist 16:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I changed the wording from "...actions of myself and Radiant..." to "...of Karmafist and Radiant...". --AySz88^-^ 18:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Joeyramoney is not a troll

1) Aside from the userbox affair, Joeyramoney's contributions are those of an apparently well-intentioned new user, and not a troll.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is my suggestion. Dragons flight 18:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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:

The Land commended

1) The Land is commended for acting to defuse the potential wheel war over blocking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ashibaka desysoped

2) Ashibaka is desysoped for wheel warring. He is free to re-apply for adminship at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship whenever he likes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Perhaps a better remedy would be some sort of "wheel war probation"? I think desysoping is a bit harsh (even though I completely disagree with Ashibaka over what was being undeleted). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In light of Ashibaka's statement, I think any "remedy" with him is unnecessary. However, in the event some remedy is desired (for any of those desysop'd) I strongly urge some form of temporary (six months to a year) "wheel-war probation" instead of stripping them of their sysop powers. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Carbonite, et al required to reapply for adminship

3) Carbonite, Carnildo, El C, Ashibaka, BorgHunter, and Karmafist are required to reapply for adminship at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This has been frowned upon before. Basically it's a ready-made bloodbath (if you're suggesting forced reapplication). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that some of the parties involved were using their admin powers inappropriately, this was more akin to an edit war: edit warriors get blocked temporarily to allow them time to cool down. Jimbo himself stated this desysoping is meant to be temporary to give them time to cool down: unless the admins involved abuse their powers more, I don't see why this temporary desysopping should be made permanent. --Deathphoenix 15:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I too think the desysoppings were made with the intention of their being a temporary cool-down period. I would hazzard a guess that a preiod of 1 week would be what Jimbo had in mind (as that is how long he blocked user:joeyramoney for). After that, imho, their sysop status should be restored with a warning that if they wheel war again they will automatically be desysopped and have to reapply at WP:RFA. At this point I don't feel that the inevitable maelstrom that requiring these users to reapply at RFA would cause would benefit the community. Thryduulf 15:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that this is a little different than the stevertigo style...these admins were desysopped by someone other than arbcom, and this remedy would simply require them to go through the normal process. However, it would be better for arbcom to simply make a decision. They could leave them desysopped, and possibly resysop others...While I haven't looked at the evidence much yet, it appears that El C made a really minor blatant abuse, and should be warned and resysopped. It's rather doubtful that an RFA would do anything other than leave them all desysopped. --Phroziac _. o º 16:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, El C was one of the people that wanted to ban all pedophiles. I'd like him to get the same remedy as the others. --Phroziac _. o º 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Carbonite, et al lose adminship for one week

4) Carbonite, Carnildo, El C, Ashibaka, BorgHunter, and Karmafist will have their adminship restored one (1) week after it was removed. Where applicable, they will be sternly warned against wheel warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This may need adjustment (some of those who lost sysop access may have not been at fault or wheel warred, making this remedy inappropriate). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not worthwhile in my opinion. Several problems: First of all, this sounds too much like punishment for me. It's not like a one week ban, which has a high likelihood of waking the person up. Second, I feel that atleast a few of these should be left desysopped. There have been lots of complaints about Karmafist's administrative actions recently (pretty much starting with the Pigsonthewing arbcom case, where arbcom sanctioned him to not use admin powers on Pigsonthewing), and Carnildo made an indefinite block on another admin during this edit war. This is just such an obviously bad decision. Third, no arbcom case ever lasts less than a week. Arbcom could order a speedy re-sysop, but I don't think they would bother. If anything, change it to a week after the arbitration case ends. --Phroziac _. o º

Regarding your first issue, this was meant to be a "everything else is too harsh, is there a lightweight remedy we can use?" option. Regarding your second issue, I strongly discourage the ArbCom from using this incident as a backdoor to desysop'ing someone who isn't exactly popular with certain groups right now. Specifically in the case of Karmafist, I think his unblock overriding Jimbo was justifiable (look at Karmafist's unblock comment; suggesting Jimbo assume good faith). Karmafist may not be perfect, but this shouldn't be turned into a forum to punish him for his other past actions. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Carbonite, et al placed on wheel war probation

5) Carbonite, Carnildo, El C, Ashibaka, BorgHunter, and Karmafist are placed on "wheel war probation" for a period of six months. If, during this time, they engage in wheel war activities any editor may ask the Arbitration committee to reopen this case and have the ArbCom consider further remedies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed "wheel war probation" remedy as mentioned above. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Carbonite, et al desysopped

6) Carbonite, Carnildo, El C, Ashibaka, BorgHunter, and Karmafist are desysopped. They may apply for adminship on RFA if and when they choose.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is, IMO, unnecessary. Ashibaka fairly well explained his actions, and Karmafist was (IMO) justified in his unblock. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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: