Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InkSplotch (talk | contribs) at 22:55, 17 February 2006 (→Recreated content). 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

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:

It is pretty clear that the issue is not userboxes but objectionable userboxes. This blanket injunction would apply to all userboxes, even such harmless and fun ones as {{user rainbow}}. Actually the issue is the relationship between Tony Sidaway's actions and userbox policy as it existed at the time of his actions. Fred Bauder 15:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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:

Extremely gross or disruptive material may be deleted. This includes userboxes. The controversy involves the middle ground where the userbox is arguably disruptive but not obviously so to everyone. Fred Bauder 15:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
  • That's actually pretty much the point. Since we can't agree on what "clearly divisive" is, treat them all the same and {{sofixit}}.
    brenneman 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Only about 10% of userbox deletion is controversial (see User:Physchim62/Userboxen or the deletion logs), and userbox deletion accounts for only 0.5% of total deletion. This proposal is way too severe. Physchim62 (talk) 14:02, 15 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:

Obviously he should leave refactoring to others. Fred Bauder 16:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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 Aaron Brenneman's 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)

Tony Sidaway banned from editing these arbitration pages

4) A quick analysis of the edits to date to these pages:

Editor                       Count     %
Tony Sidaway                    56    54%
Tony Sidaway m                  19    18%
Aaron Brenneman                 12    12%
Haukurth                         6    6%
Lar                              4    4%
Johnleemk                        2    2%
Johnleemk m                      2    2%
Physchim62                       1    1%
SCZenz                           1    1%
Aaron                            1    1%
Grand Total                      104

Comment by Arbitrators:

Actually if anything going on for far too long would not be a point in Tony's favor... you think we like to read this stuff? In any case, no, not workable. Though I would prefer it if any refactoring was left to a clerk not involved in the case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposals and comments by the parties are encouraged. Fred Bauder 16:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Kudos to Crotalus. He's writing the encyclopedia. ---Tony Sidaway 03:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm tempted to quote "wikipedia is not a soapbax" but it's very clear that allowing the editor with the most free time to carve requests for arbitration into their own image is not good for the encyclopedia. Let Tony get a mediator, or put suggested edits to this page on his talk, or any method that will allow the floor to be yeilded to other participants. This should not be about who is able to yell the loudest and longest. - brenneman 22:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, what? Tony's a party in this arbitration. He has to be able to comment on the case, add evidence, and so on. Or do I misunderstand which pages you're claiming he's not allowed to edit? -- SCZenz 22:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Come on, Aaron :) You've got to allow the guy to edit pages in his own case even if he is unusually prolific. I've got to admit, though, that I'm mentally awarding points to Crotalus for filing a case and then completely ignoring it in favor of editing articles on US coinage  :) Haukur 22:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

When we take out minor edits, almost 70% of the contributions to this page are by a single editor. Does that seem healthy? - brenneman 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the case is named after him. -- SCZenz 23:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If it were unhealthy, there would surely be some bad stuff on this page requiring amendments or excisions. Look at the substance, not the style, of his edits. For all we know, Tony may just suck at using the preview button. Besides, as others have said, it's impractical to ban a party to the case from editing pages about it. Johnleemk | Talk 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding!? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This will be unworkable. The main party in a arbitration case must have access to the Workshop, and so far I cannot see that Tony has been doing anything disruptive here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Updated metrics below. - brenneman 06:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

editor	 	   Total     Percent
Tony Sidaway 	 	145	43%
Aaron Brenneman 	40	12%
David Gerard 	 	30	9%
Nandesuka 	 	24	7%
Geni 	 	 	16	5%
SCZenz 	  		14	4%
...
Aaron 	 	 	1	0%
Ral315 	  		1	0%
MegamanZero 	 	1	0%
Dmcdevit 	 	1	0%
Grand Total	 	335	100%

Aaron Brenneman restricted from editing pages of this arbitration

Aaron Brenneman may not directly edit pages relating to this arbitration. He may edit on the talk pages of this arbitration.

Comment by arbitrators:

He's not a party, but it'd still be silly and unnecessary. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposals and comments by others is both permitted and encouraged. Fred Bauder 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As a point of information, I was a party to the Webcomics case, post facto. I always join myself to cases in which I intend to contribute evidence. Around half of the findings of fact and one of the two remedies in that case were written by me, and many of the other findings of fact contained substantial text written by me. --Tony Sidaway 17:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He's all over these pages trying to nail Tony on anything he can, substantial or procedural, large or small, even though not involved in the case himself. That's obnoxious but not an offense ... but when he seriously proposes that the defendant not be allowed to edit the case pages at all, that's past the point of being taken seriously. If he has a substantive issue, he should join the case properly. Else stop acting querulously - David Gerard 07:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Err, Ad hominem? If you'd like to point out a section below that you think is not relevant, or dispute the numbers above, please do so. If you'd like graphic evidence of what I'm referring to please see the 15,000 words in Webcomics/Withdrawn or the 23,500 at Webcomics/Workshop. First note that Tony was not a party to that case, and that many of the issues he raised were explicitly ruled out in the "accept" comments of the arbitrators, per your objections above. Then examine the breakdown on number of edits (excluding those marked as minor) for the webcomics workshop page below.

Now it's all fine for us to say "a person has a right to defend themselves" and "it must all be good stuff" but I'd suggest that there are many angles from which to tell the same story, and that by allowing a single editor to overwhelmingly dominate the editing we decrease the chances of hearing all sides.

brenneman 11:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Editor 	            Count	%
Tony Sidaway 		279	37.8%
Snowspinner 		60	8.1%
SCZenz 		        51	6.9%
Jtkiefer 		44	6.0%
Filiocht 		38	5.1%
Aaron Brenneman 	30	4.1%
Geogre 		        27	3.7%
Mindspillage 		26	3.5%
Kelly Martin 		24	3.2%
Paul August 		24	3.2%
Sjakkalle 		23	3.1%
Nandesuka 		18	2.4%
Dformosa 		14	1.9%
Pilatus 		14	1.9%
ClockworkSoul 		11	1.5%
Dragonfiend 		11	1.5%
Lar 			10	1.4%
Sean Black 		9	1.2%
216.234.130.130 	7	0.9%
Tabor 			5	0.7%
Cryptic 		5	0.7%
Fred Bauder 		4	0.5%
Fangz 			2	0.3%
66.101.59.18 		1	0.1%
Titoxd 		        1	0.1%
The Epopt 		1	0.1%
Total Result		739

You're missing something important here, Aaron. Tony didn't really get what he wanted out of the decision in that case. So you seem to have proved that how much he edits doesn't really matter. (To be even-handed, I should mention the fairly obvious fact that excluding Aaron from these pages is just about as nonsensical as excluding Tony.) -- SCZenz 17:55, 15 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:User page.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not phrased well. A userpage is that of a Misplaced Pages editor and while it need not be strictly enforced large amounts of information irrelevant to either the user or Misplaced Pages editing is not acceptable. Userboxes express the personality of the user and are an aid to other users in relating to them. Fred Bauder 17:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway/Workshop for comments on this and other fundamental principles... not ready to add the rest I think need adding just yet but soon. Comments welcomed. ++Lar: t/c 15:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Content of user pages

1.1) User pages may contain information about yourself, your Misplaced Pages activities, and your opinions about Misplaced Pages issues. Misplaced Pages:Userboxes are welcome, provided they do not violate Misplaced Pages policy, see Misplaced Pages:User page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Keeping in mind that Misplaced Pages:Proposed policy on userboxes is a work in progress and that Jimbo may chose to proclaim policy, either on his own or in consultation with others, such as the arbitration committee. Fred Bauder 17:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Function of user pages

1.2) User pages which contain information about the users, their Misplaced Pages activities, and their opinions about Misplaced Pages issues, whether written out or expressed through user boxes serve to communicate useful information regarding users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Whatever is on a user page can serve as a convenient, if rough, guide to what can be expected from a user. Fred Bauder 17:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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, for instance a userfied article that is linked to from article space, or a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner, it may be treated as a recreation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, trying to work around a community decision ought not to work. A decision might be reversed, but that decision should be made after a transparent request for changing the decision. Fred Bauder 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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. 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.

I've refined the wording to give specific examples. In answer to Geni, the proposed principle says nothing about deletion, only whether the item is to be considered a recreation. Of course if you delete an item for administrative purposes (such as renaming a category or a picture) you're then quite free to recreate it under the same or a different name. --Tony Sidaway 23:52, 15 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)
• So when I delete and reupload an image I missnamed I'm not allowed to use it?Geni 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, of course. Because the deletion was not because the image was not wanted here; it was to facilitate the renaming. Rob Church (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• What is missing here is a distinction between content deleted appropriately and content deleted inappropriately. If I go all nutso and delete the {{test}} templates, recreation of that content is encouraged (and somebody better see if my account is compromised). If I delete somebody's personal vanity articles and five accompanying templates under speedy deletion criteria, it better not be recreated. When a userbox is deleted as a result of a valid deletion process, it carries the weight of legitimacy. When it is deleted by one administrator acting unilaterally, everything may be fine under WP:IAR, but the community hasn't really ruled, and so unless a clear policy is violated by the content, recreating it is not necessarily a violation. (In other words, userfication of something that the community has ruled does not belong here is a serious problem. Userfication of something one admin deleted MAY be a serious problem, but it not inherently a problem simply because one admin said so.) Personally, I like to adhere to a no-revert policy on my admin actions. For example, I just speedy deleted an article that did NOT fit WP:CSD because of what I felt were special considerations. I then went to the relevant AfD and stated that if any admin disagrees, they should go ahead and undo my actions, at which point I'll leave it alone and let the community sort it out. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Look below, I've taken a stab at rewriting this with precisely this in mind. InkSplotch 22:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Recreated content

2.1) If a page, image or template deleted through consensus or recognized policy 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 which prompted deletion, for instance a userfied article that is linked to from article space, or a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner, it may be treated as a recreation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think the original is a bit ambiguous, at least from what I see of the original intent. I've taken a stab at clarification here. InkSplotch 19:18, 17 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:

Well, yes, but not necessary as a principle. A person is responsible for all the accounts they create. Fred Bauder 17:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

The Ciz case is slightly different - in that case the account was created to edit on subjects the editor didn't want his main account linked to, which is quite acceptable. However, penalties apply per person not per account, so the operator's other account was revealed as penalties applied to it too. In this case, Crotalus horridus operates the second account as openly being his, which is a bit different. It's close to a role account, except it's clearly a person's. But then, if editors operate a bot for example they are expected to run it under another account name. I'm not entirely sure there's a clear principle that can be abstracted from community opinion or behaviour on this one - David Gerard 13:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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:

I don't think Jimbo's placement of the policy is being complained about so much as the interpretation of it by admins. (Not that it isn't being complained about some.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has definite opinions regarding use of user boxes and may promulgate binding policy should he choose to. Fred Bauder 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This principle is not well expressed and I will offer alternative wording as principle 4.1 Fred Bauder 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. This is related to proposed findings of fact 7 and 9, and proposed remedy 1. --Tony Sidaway 04:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not sure how relevant this is here. Jimbo has expressed a dislike of userboxes, but has not decreed that they be deleted. Jimbo has yet to be involved in this case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant because Jimbo re-added CSD T1, along with a note that it should be used sparingly and people should chill out. Many have interpreted this is a policy intervention using his full authority, although I've yet to be fully convinced that this was intended. -- SCZenz 17:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, didn't he say it was? - David Gerard 13:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. A simular wording problem to the one being debated further down the page.Geni 05:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has expressed his wish that divisive userboxes and categories be eliminated. However, I do not believe he has qualified what "divisive" means. Some people believe any expression of religion is divisive. Others believe it is more along the lines of declaring one's ethnicity. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo as policy maker

4.1) Jimbo Wales, the founder of Misplaced Pages, may make Misplaced Pages policy when he chooses to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Jimbo will be most effective when he works closely with other in formulating policy and exercises his power sparingly. Fred Bauder 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Deletion is a reversible operation, with the exception of images

5) The deletion policy recognises that, with the exception of images, deletion is a reversible operation and thus entrusts administrators with discretion, subject to cause, using their own judgement to delete some items that match certain criteria (speedy deletion). If an administrator wrongly deletes an item, he or any other administrator may undelete it under the exception clause of the undeletion policy, or any other editor may submit the deletion to review in Misplaced Pages:Deletion review.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Seems OK. Fred Bauder 17:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Although some deleted things do not seem to be recoverable Fred Bauder 17:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Establishes the role of speedy deletion within Misplaced Pages policy. "By mistake" changed to "wrongly" in response to a comment by geni. I think Septentrionalis makes a very good point; it is sometimes difficult to get someone to undelete something for you. I am a member of Category: User undeletion, a group of administrators who go out of their way to make deleted material, where possible, available to those who want to see it. However it is true that if you don't know that such people exist, or who they are, you cannot view deleted material. --Tony Sidaway 03:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm not sure I've ever deleted anything by mistake. It would be quite hard to do as you have click the deleted tab and then click on the delete button. Geni 00:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

On newpages patrol, speedy deleters are given more latitude than they might get otherwise, and mistakes do happen - so others follow to undelete defensible new articles (on a no harm, no foul basis with good will from both teams to each other - it saves the speedy deleters from stressing too much and it saves community concern over erroneous deletion) - David Gerard 13:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The person still meant to delete. All it means is that they were error over that descission.Geni 05:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion, especially speedy deletion, is difficult for non-admins to review or reverse, and they are the majority of the community. This proposed finding seems a trifle cavalier about this, and may be ignoring a significant cause of the userbox tension. Septentrionalis 03:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Tony: this is the first I'd heard of the category, and I have non-trivial WP experience. Septentrionalis 04:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion is not quite as reversible as it might seem. I'd be careful making such a statement ^^;; Kim Bruning 03:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a technical justification for that statement, might I ask? Rob Church (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, deletion is not always a reversible operation. When there are leftover deleted revisions on the same page title (for instance, because some revisions were selectively deleted to remove personal information) deletion loses information (it's not possible, after the deletion, to know which revisions were deleted on that action and which revisions were already deleted before it). Combine it with a page move and you have the recipe for a confusing mess. --cesarb 18:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox

6) WP:NOT: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Whilst it is acceptable to express personal opinions not directly related to Misplaced Pages, particularly in the context of revealing one's editing bias, Misplaced Pages is not the place for proselytism, advocacy, or promotion of those opinions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

True enough, but that principle addresses the article namespace, not appropriate expression on user pages of where the user is coming from. Obviously a user can go too far and violate Misplaced Pages policy by going too far, but that is first, a matter for their own self-discipline, a question to discuss with them, but only as a last resort for administrative or dispute resolution action. Fred Bauder 19:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In response to Sjakkalle, this principle applies also to user space. If someone creates a user page with a blatant ad for his business, we persuade him to edit it to remove the promotional content (see User talk:Check-Six). Similarly someone who uses his user page to promote a fringe theory of political belief may be persuaded not to do so. The use of the word "soapbox" in this principle implies not simply expression of opinion, but promotion, proselytism and advocacy of any kind. The former is acceptable as a means of disclosing a bias or telling people about yourself; the latter is an abuse of Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Dragonfiend's query about associated proposed findings of fact, see 12 "The nature of T1 speedy deletions" and the associated evidence, which shows many uses of userboxes for the purpose of advocacy, and 19, "Jimbo considers the present userbox situation not acceptable", which contains further information about Jimbo's concerns as the project leader. --Tony Sidaway 17:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

On Dragonfiend's further comments, the question of whether Crotalus' move was a wise one or not cannot be divorced from the context in which he made it. Whether or not he intended to, his moves involved the recreation of templates that had been deleted for cause, and the proposed findings of fact outline the gravity and context of that cause. --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think that this long-standing Misplaced Pages policy should be restated for the benefit of all. Physchim62 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this rule applies with greatest force to articles in the main namespace. In the userspace, we have usually been tolerant of extreme bias. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there an associated finding of fact to go with this proposed principle? I'd expect the principle "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox" to be followed by finding(s) of fact suggesting that a party/parties to this dispute has been using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. -- Dragonfiend 17:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, "The nature of T1 speedy deletions" seems to deal with the general issue of users creating userboxes that are "grossly ucivil and, while seeking to amuse, are also clearly calculated to cause offense." If it is your position that Crotalus has created or recreated uncivil/offensive userboxes then maybe you should have a civility principle paired with examples of Crotalus's uncivil user boxes. If you thiink Crotalus's userboxes amount to using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox, then maybe you should create a finding of fact of "Crotalus uses Misplaced Pages as a soapbox." Similarly, "Jimbo considers the present userbox situation not acceptable" contains much information on Jimbo's general stance on wheel warring over and mass deletions of inflammatory userboxes. However, I don't see anything that suggests that Crotalus's userboxes are inflammatory. There just doesn't seem to be any connections drawn between this soapbox principle and your behaviour or the behaviour of Crotalus. -- Dragonfiend 17:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on this, Tony. Are you saying that Crotalus din't use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox or engage in incivility, but that his recreation of deleted material took place in the context of other users' incivility and use of Misplaced Pages as a soapbox? It seems to me that if neither Crotalus nor Tony Sidaway have been using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox then there's no need to reiterate that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. If neither Tony Sidaway nor Crotalus have been using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox, then it looks to me like this ought to be withdrawn, along with any other principles or findings of fact that do not relate to the matter at hand (the actions of Tony Sidaway and Crotalus). -- Dragonfiend 19:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This finding of principle might be relevant as to whether the templates were appropriate material for a Misplaced Pages user page, and hence whether Crotalus was justified in placing them there or whether Tony was justified in deleting them. It is for ArbCom to decide. Physchim62 (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Fred Bauder's comment, WP:NOT says explicitly: "Most of the policies here apply to your user page as well. For example, you can't use your user page as a free web host." --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Stating that a person holds a position is not the same as proselytism or advocacy. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a free webspace provider

7) WP:NOT: Misplaced Pages is not a free host, blog or webspace provider

Comment by Arbitrators:

True enough and a user who uses their user page in that way is out of line. However a user page which is interesting, give some feeling about how the user contributes to and feels about Misplaced Pages, including some userboxes, is appropriate and useful. Fred Bauder 20:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think that this long-standing Misplaced Pages policy should be restated for the benefit of all. Physchim62 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

7.1) Per WP:NOT, Misplaced Pages is not a free host, blog or webspace provider: "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of User pages should not be social networking but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, the express language is quoted, but interesting and informative user pages, including appropriate user boxes remain useful to the project. Fred Bauder 20:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Seems germane to the operation of an account with the purpose of providing transcludable templates for the decoration of user pages. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I prefer the full statement - it's phrased as a guideline, but it's on a policy page and makes it pretty clear that your user page is about you in the context of Misplaced Pages. - David Gerard 13:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Opinion on Userpages

8) Misplaced Pages:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F: Opinion or other pieces not related to Misplaced Pages

Comment by Arbitrators:

This proposed principle is rather poorly phrased as it does not distinguish between a brief and appropriate disclosure of where the user is coming from and lengthy essays on matters unrelated to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages:User_page makes it clear that you can't use you user page as a blog or personal webpage, but does not discourage disclosure of what you are into and how you feel about things. It is an opportunity to introduce yourself to the Misplaced Pages community and done well is interesting and informative; if done poorly, it may not be interesting, but is certainly informative. Fred Bauder 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think that this long-standing Misplaced Pages policy should be restated for the benefit of all. Physchim62 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Guideline is not equal to policy.Geni 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why I prefer the full quote from WP:NOT, which is policy - David Gerard 13:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Entertainment

9) wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F Things that fall into "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia," particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project

Comment by Arbitrators:

An interesting user page may contain some "entertainment" which may either serve to illuminate the character of the user or create a bad impression. In either event it serves the function of creating a useable impression to other users which they can use in relating to the user. Obviously a vast amount of unrelated material is inappropriate and a violation of using the space as a personal webpage. Fred Bauder 20:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think that this long-standing Misplaced Pages policy should be restated for the benefit of all. Physchim62 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Where are the bounds here? I have included one of my chess games, with annotations, on my userpage and it has been there for several months. It does not have much to do with writing an encyclopedia, it serves only as a vanity piece of entertainment about how I escaped from a difficult position, and yet not one person has complained about it yet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You aren't running around creating six thousand odd templates and slapping them about the place, then wheel-warring when someone puts their foot down. Or are you? One harmless 30 second bit of typing which you then leave alone for months while you go off writing an encyclopaedia does not equal a long-term mudslinging match during which time users squabble and bitch fruitlessly about a bunch of pastel coloured boxes. Rob Church (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wide latitude granted on userpages

10) The Misplaced Pages community is fairly tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic," may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia, see Misplaced Pages:User page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I support this principle, although I might copyedit it some. Fred Bauder 20:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adding another guideline of WP:USER. Of course, there will be a question of how wide "fairly wide" is. Clearly adding the pedophilia userbox to a userpage way over the line. Saying "Hi, and happy Valentine's Day!" is acceptable by most standards. Political userboxes have clearly been contentious. I think the userpage guidelines are all relevant, but it is perhaps best to merge "Opinion on Userpages" and "Entertainment" into a single relevant principle. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the point here is that policies should be clear to all in their application, whereas guidelines are things that can really only be applied by clueful editors of good faith - because those of bad faith won't care, and those who are clueless won't understand. Or, to rephrase, you can't legislate editorial judgement into existence - David Gerard 13:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Respect for Misplaced Pages's consensus decision making process

11) Administrators, like all editors, should be respectful of consensus. In cases where consensus is not clear or is in dispute, applications of SysOp rights should show deference to discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, and one question in this arbitration is whether and to what extent Tony Sidaway has run ahead of Misplaced Pages's consensus decision making process. Beyond that, is the question of whether, when he stipulates to the principle, we ought to be engaging in our perfect hind-sight and applying strict disciplinary measure to an administrator who is presumed to have proceeded in good faith. Fred Bauder 20:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Stipulated. --Tony Sidaway 03:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If adminship is "no big deal" than the powers shouldn't be used as extra muscle. If the argument cannot be made without pushing the extra buttons, that's a sign that the buttons shouldn't be pushed. - brenneman 01:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Pardon? "Stipulate - to make an express demand or arrangement (for), as a condition of agreement." What are you saying?
brenneman 04:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It means he's agreeing with you, actually. You could at least pretend to AGF - David Gerard 13:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd ask that the Arbitrators remind David Gerard of the requirement to be civil at all times and to refrain from personal attacks.
brenneman 13:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out your lack of good faith in a civil answer is a personal attack? - David Gerard 00:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think his confusion as to what was being said was necessarilly a lack of good faith, or in fact anything other than, well, simple confusion. Michael Ralston 04:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Administrators may make mistakes

12) 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. However, consistent or egregiously poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status, or the placement of restrictions upon particular administrator powers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, consensus on that point Fred Bauder 20:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

":See proposed remedy 4" might be proposed principle 4 but seems to not be relevant Fred Bauder 20:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

From Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, passed 13-0. See proposed remedy 3. --Tony Sidaway 16:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

See proposed remedy 4. Nandesuka 12:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Vocal "community consensus" cannot overrule good sense and project focus

13) In some cases, a popular interest amongst the Misplaced Pages community may be harmful to the project and need action, even in the face of vocal opposition, including opposition from administrators (c.f. the pedophilia userbox wheel war).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Extremely poorly phrased, but there is a valid point. I will try to rephrase as 13.5 Fred Bauder 21:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Couldn't have put it better myself. This isn't a license to abuse the sysop bit, but rather a statement to the effect that if a situation is obviously bad for the encyclopedia one can take an unpopular but needed action. The instances cited in this case are cases of overt disruption, through a direct attack on the neutrality policy (proposed finding of fact 17), and multiple incitement to vandalism (proposed finding of fact 18). There are nuances here and in the context of the pedophile userbox case I expect the committee to think things through carefully, but the principle may be a useful one as we move from a smaller more homogeneous community to a larger one in which project focus is no longer distributed evenly. --Tony Sidaway 14:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This was the principle missing from the {user pedophile} arbitration case. Jimbo has noted the problem with large numbers of new editors coming into Misplaced Pages, including new admins, who are not actually very enculturated into Misplaced Pages's project aims. Vocal opposition is not at all the same as being right, and the {user pedophile} case was a pointed example - David Gerard 11:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be quite hard to make it to admin these days with out a fair idea of what the project's aims are (remeber you need well over 1000 edits and they have to be in the right namespaces). It is to be expect that each generation of admins will have slightly different views on the correct way to atchive these aims.Geni 12:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship is a broken process which doesn't produce the right sort of people all the time. I too have noticed a glut of newbie admins who tot up 1500 reverts on RC patrol, then get passed down the line sharpish 'cos their mates from IRC vote for them. Rob Church (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish they at least came on irc. That'd help to acculturate them at least. :-) Kim Bruning 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

IRC had better not be a requirement for adminship. 1500 is more edits than I had when I scraped through RFA back in the day.Geni 06:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The {user pedophile} conflict involved an unencultured new admin. He was of good will and good faith, and furthermore his attitude to the RFAr showed that IMO he'll be a fantastic admin - but he was not up to speed at the time, which was very unfortunate all round - David Gerard 13:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

At any given time the number of people who can truly be said to be up to speed on en.wikipedia is probably in the single figures if that.Geni 06:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Your reply is an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle, with a bit of the True Scotsman fallacy mixed in - David Gerard 12:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Haveing reread your statement it appears I missunderstood your point. However I would suggest looking into my admins may not be up to speed on what is expected of them (other than WP:CSD changeing more often than some moderately high profile articles) but that is a disscussion for another time.Geni 13:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A fantastically apposite wikien-l post from Jimbo on the subject of enculturation: "As far as I can determine, and I am very much aware that I am here prejudicing the terms of debate, this is a cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue with people for fun." - David Gerard 15:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

See the talk page section This is a project with a community, not a community with a project where I (and hopefully others, soon) comment further on this mail... ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Procedure in the event of active community conflict

13.5) From time to time opinion among users, and even among inexperienced administrators may differ from Misplaced Pages policies. Due to spectacularly rapid growth, the influx of many new users and promotion of relatively inexperienced users to administrator status, lack of full socialization in Misplaced Pages principles and practices creates the potential for the outbreak of conflict, (c.f. the pedophilia userbox wheel war). In such cases the dispute will be resolved by experienced administrators familiar with and committed to fundamental Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines in consultation with User:Jimbo Wales, founder of Misplaced Pages or by Jimbo Wales directly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think this addresses what happens when "all hell breaks loose". Experienced supporters and the founder of Misplaced Pages are not going to lose their heads, but will take effective and appropriate action. Fred Bauder 21:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point

14) Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in the Misplaced Pages itself proof that the rule does not work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not aware of anyone taking actions in bad faith in this case; to my knowledge Crotalus horridus seems to have genuinely and without malice believed that he was doing something acceptable, for the greater good of the project, and he did so openly, although perhaps not wisely. For this honest motive he is to be commended. For my part I do not make bad faith actions either. --Tony Sidaway 14:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others;

Common sense. The text is taken directly from the opening paragraph of the WP:POINT page. This is relevant to many of the findings of fact below, and the policies in question, of course, are the deletion policy and the criteria for speedy deletion. Nandesuka 12:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not a correct summary of WP:POINT - WP:POINT is about doing something you don't want to happen to make a point. This appears to be a little-understood detail amongst many who say "WP:POINT" whenever anyone does anything they consider disruptive. I should know, I wrote large chunks of the page in question - David Gerard 12:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not be recognizing your own writing, then, since the summary is simply the opening paragraph of WP:POINT. I think it is a fine, relevant summary, and I think many of the findings of fact below can accurately be described as "unilateral action, rather than discussion." This principle is, therefore, directly relevant. I disagree with David Gerard's strangely narrow reading of what WP:POINT means; the arbitrators are free to decide for themselves whether the belief that disrupting Misplaced Pages is OK as long as you really think you're on the right side is correct. I think it's not. Nandesuka 13:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly questioning its relevance to this case. I don't think any of the participants were operating in that sort of bad faith or even frustration - David Gerard 13:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

And see below where you misstate what WP:POINT means - David Gerard 13:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To me this finding is relevant to the question of why Tony deleted the CAoW again and again and again. The debate was clearly heading towards deletion, those restoring it were only asking for that debate to be allowed to resolve, there was no "danger" from the continuing existance of the CAoW while the debate went forward. If the purpose of this was not to make a point, what was it? - 03:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and it's mildy amusing to see that Nandesuka is chastised for being a "process wrangler" and not using "common sense" in one location but when it suits he's chastised for not mechanically following the text of a guideline. Is David Gerard suggesting that disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point is acceptable as long as the disruptive action is one I agree with? - brenneman 03:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that he's suggesting that if the user taking the action doesn't think it's disruption (IE, are doing it in good faith), then it's not actually WP:POINT. Michael Ralston 04:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh... so if someone takes action that they agree with and it causes disruption, this doesn't apply because we can never know that they are doing so to prove a point. Thus while I think that any reasonable person would think that Tony was trying not only to remove CAoW but to prove a point while doing so, merely by saying "no I wasn't" he nullifies this finding of fact. Ok, while I continue to object to the legalistic interpretation of a guideline that's not actually included in the proposed section, that makes sense. Thus we're left with Don't disrupt wikipedia I'll trim the section, but this could probably be folded into another finding. - brenneman 04:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

All action is by nature disruptive, only perfect inaction is not disruptive. Admin actions are nescesarily strongly disruptive. Hence the nescesary caveat. Kim Bruning 04:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to write an encyclopedia, not to avoid disruption - David Gerard 12:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right

14.1) Administrators should avoid getting into battles over the right way of doing something. If someone appears to have done the right thing in the wrong way, discuss this and explain why it was done wrong. To undo the action because you disagree with the way in which it was done leads to needless disruption of Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See proposed finding of fact 20/20.1 and proposed remedy 5. Nandesuka's actions in three times undeleting the Catholic Alliance of Misplaced Pages page against overwhelming consensus to delete seems to me to have been motivated by a feeling that the right thing had been done in the wrong way, I wonder if it's now time that the Committee considered adopting this particular interpretation, which I feel has more clarity and provides more practical guidance than the much-misinterpreted formulation: "Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point". --Tony Sidaway 20:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In fact, such would explicitly be a WP:POINT violation — doing something he didn't want (making that page live again) to make a point (the importance of process as he sees it). (And Nandesuka, that is what WP:POINT means.) - David Gerard 01:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is actually a slightly nonsensical interpretation, and conflate the dual roles of editors and janitors that admins must carry out. It is not only appropiate but essential that while performing "janitorial" duties we lay aside as much as possible any personal agenda that we may have. Additionally, we're not empowered to simply do whatever we want whenever we want, but barring the very rare actual emergancy, to follow the accepted practices and conventions. It is in fact laudable of Nandesuka to have put aside his personal feelings and to have acted to stop further disruption. Barring this finding being at attempt to skewer one admin while neatly sidestepping another, it's also redundant with Respect below. - brenneman 04:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Process is Important

15) Process is a fundamental tool for carrying out community consensus, and for allowing a very large number of people to work together on a collaborative project. Process is also the mechanism by which users can trust that others are playing fair, that the rules do not suddenly change, nor are they different for some privileged editors. Poor process or no process ultimately harms the product. Action outside of process is particularly dangerous when it involves powers restricted to administrators, or knowledge available only to long-established editors. This tends to create at least the impression of a caste system. No one wants to be on the bottom of a caste system, and such perceptions reduce the motivation for people to contribute. For all these reasons, editors and particularly administrators ought to adhere to and use existing processes, and resist the temptation to act outside of process, other than in truly emergency situations. If a process is not good, think enough of fellow Wikipedians to engage the problem and propose a change to it; don't just ignore the process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"This is a legitimate journalist who is writing in Slate, the New York Timnes, etc.! Even if VfD _did_ produce a consensus that this article should be deleted, then VfD is broken and should be ignored in a case like this. Remember, our fundamental goal here is to write a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia, and our social rules are in service to this mission." -Jimbo Wales, 2 August 2005, addressing User:GregNorc's concerns about Snowspinner closing of Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Cyrus Farivar (emphasis mine)

Furthermore, just a few days ago several administrators were sanctioned, some to the point of desysopping, largely for a blind adherence to process. I know what happened that night, minute by minute, I was the person who had to go through the log and prepare the timeline of events.

So yes, process is important. Without some sort of process the community would be quite unable to function. But some things are more important. The encyclopedia, for instance. Commonsense trumps process, every single time. --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Text taken from WP:PI. Not an official policy or guideline by any means, but a good summary of the role of process in the creation of our encyclopedia. Nandesuka 01:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope the AC will not be so foolish as to elevate part of that opinion page to the status of policy just like that - David Gerard 12:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

These are principles, not policies. The Arbcom may cite whatever principles help it decide its cases, at it's pleasure, without changing existing Misplaced Pages policy. Note that "Two wrongs don't make a right" -- that would be the principle listed immediately before this one -- isn't policy, either. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 12:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith

16) Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Relates mainly to querulous challenge-by-undeletion of obviously correct deletions of unsuitable trash by an administrator in good standing.. "But he did it the wrong way" just won't do as an excuse for misuse of sysop powers. --Tony Sidaway 05:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Relates also to Aaron's comment below, obviously. --Tony Sidaway 05:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I question whether any part of the deletion policy can be upheld by undeleting a page for which there is absolutely no place on Misplaced Pages and for which there is an overwhelming consensus to delete. "Querulous" is a good word for such actions. Perhaps it's not quite aa bad as repeatedly undeleting a pedophilia template, but it's pretty bad all the same, to repeatedly resurrect a page whose sole avowed raison d'etre is a direct attack on the neutrality policy. --Tony Sidaway 13:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Boy, you've got a real hard-on for Nadesuka all at once, don't you? I'd urge all involved to simply ignore any further "principles" that are obvious attmepts to punish an administrator for having the temerity to edit this page. Let us concentrate on the substantative issues, rather the the obfuscatory ones. - brenneman 05:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a good principle. It relates primarily to Tony Sidaway's depiction of the good faith efforts of seven different administrators, including myself, to uphold the deletion policy by undoing a speedy deletion for which there was no speedy deletion criteria at the time and while the community debate was ongoing, as "querulous." While the principle of course apply to I, Aaron Brenneman, and millions of other people around the world, none of us are parties to this arbitration. So let's think about how this applies to the parties here. Nandesuka 12:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a fair enough principle although perhaps a bit general for this case.Geni 13:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"including myself" - I think you just stated you were directly involved in the events of this case - David Gerard 14:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, my good chap. I've never denied taking any specific administrative action. I'm simply claiming that I am not a party to this case. Hundreds of people participated in many of the articles mentioned in this case, and at present the only parties are Crotalus and Tony. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia

17) "Our fundamental goal here is to write a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia, and our social rules are in service to this mission." The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information to its readers. Although Misplaced Pages has a strong community of editors, it is important to remember that Misplaced Pages is primarily for its readers, and that the activities of the community must be dedicated to that purpose.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thanks, MarkSweep. I've taken the liberty of rephrasing according to the formula passed 8-0 in the Webcomics case. --Tony Sidaway 09:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Stating the obvious. Unfortunately, it appears to be necessary to point this out explicitly once in a while. It implies several things: (1) The goal is to write an encyclopedia. It's not up to community consensus to change that, even if the majority of users think, hypothetically, that Misplaced Pages should become a social networking site. (2) While process is important, following process is not an end unto itself. Process is only important to the extent that it helps us write an encyclopedia. (3) Everything not directly relevant for building an encyclopedia is secondary. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tony Sidaway has deleted many userboxes

1) The deletion log show that Tony Sidaway has commited 162 acts of deletion on 133 distinct items, 17 of these more than once. Only 39 of these remain redlinks.

If the boxes recreated in user space are discounted, this is still 140 acts on 113 items, of which only 19 (or %14) remain redlinks.

Examples of deletions include deletion log Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Seasonal Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Seasonal

Comment by Arbitrators:

In response to Tony, this case is very much about userbox policy, including whether there is any coherent policy. This includes policy made by the community, policy promulgated by Jimbo, and the practices of our users and administrators. My questions include acceptance by the user community of those policies and practices and the wisdom of being bold in an ambiguous, even inflammatory situation. Fred Bauder 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A few minutes research on the bluelinks shows that this proposed finding of fact ignores bona fide recreations of previously unacceptable templates, templates protected against recreation (which do not show as redlinks), and recreation of deleted templates as redirects to other templates. With the exception of the initial mass deletion of belief and religion templates of January 3, I see very few templates that I have deleted that have survived in their original form. Obviously we don't want to clutter the history of acceptable templates with unacceptable forms that can give ideas to vandals.

I may present detailed evidence for the success of the strategy I have followed since early January. However, this case is not about userbox policy, which is a matter for the community to decide, not the committee. So the evidence will be presented outside this arbitration case. We are not here to decide a strategy for dealing with userboxes, but to resolve a complaint made by Crotalus about my conduct. --Tony Sidaway 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Fred Bauder, he may find my very sparely annotated timeline of administrator actions with respect to userboxes, which I have just placed on the evidence page, informative: Tony_Sidaway's administrator actions with respect to userboxes. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This should be just the plain facts. Acceptable annotations would be of the nature of "deleted after recreation by user X" or "third deletion after restoration by admin Y". brenneman 06:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Copied without commentaryt from the deletion log, only changes were to make names into links. brenneman 11:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we please stop simply deleting material that we don't like? It's couched in the slightly incorrect terms, than fix it. Most of the "proposed findings of fact" are just evidence with a little biased commentary sprinkled in, and repeatedly deleting this... oh, sorry, moving it with no links left behind, is not appropiate. At the very least edit it down to a summary, but "disappearing" sections should stop. - brenneman 22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Inserted a summary to demonstrate the futility of this course of action. - brenneman 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of those blue links are to those "this page should not be recreated" things.Geni 00:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony, if you choose not to present evidence that your "strategy" has been succesful, that's up to you. However, this case was accepted "to look at all parties' behaviour". It has been stated by numerous editors in a variety of venues that your approach to boxen deletion has been disruptive. I don't think that you get to decide what is "outside this arbitration case".
brenneman 01:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The sudden growth of userboxes on Misplaced Pages

2) Some 1500 userboxes were created in December, 2005, more than had been created in the entire history of Misplaced Pages. The rate of creation peaked in January, 2006, at some 2000 userboxes. In the first two weeks of February, 2006, the rate of creation appeared to have dropped again, with about 600 userboxes created in the first two weeks of that month. The total number of userboxes stood at about 3500 in early January and 5900 by mid-February (source: Misplaced Pages database.). The overwhelming majority of userboxes relate to languages, skills and interests and are uncontroversial. The page Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Beliefs contains templates intended to describe an editor's ideological persuasion and contains a disproportionate number of controversial templates alongside some that are less so. Examples are "This user is pro-choice", "This user favors Authoritarian or Totalitarian government", "This user identifies as a Social Democrat." The contents of this page had grown from about 45 on January 3rd to about 150 in mid-February. (See Evidence - Growth of Userboxes)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The data on general quantity and growth is from my own sql scripts run on a live mirror of the Misplaced Pages database on January 4 and February 14, which I have submitted in evidence. The count of belief-based boxes is from the history of the page itself. --Tony Sidaway 12:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Genu's question about the Great Renaming, I can't find that many of them frankly. There are about 80 boxes whose names were originally "Userbox_something", and there are also about 100 or so deleted "User_something" templates that were originally created before December, 2005, but a lot of these were in fact moved and then for some reason the redirects were deleted. I have no count for the number that were copy-pasted although I'm trying to get this. In any case, the number involved seems to have been negligible compared to the number of genuinely new userboxes that appeared in December.

Only those userboxes which were cloned by copy-paste, rather than moved, would have lost their history. So there may be at most 200 or so userboxes whose inception date is wrongly stated as December, whereas their actual creation was in some earlier month. In fact my initial tests seem to suggest that a very high proportion of the renamings were done by moves, although for some reason the redirects were then deleted and these deletions show up in the figures that I cite above. --Tony Sidaway 14:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Again, just the plain facts. Acceptable annotations would be of the nature of "created after deletion by user X" or "third restoration after deletion by admin Y". brenneman 06:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Per above. - brenneman 22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Do those figures correct for the mass renameing?Geni 23:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Extensive discussions have taken place regarding userboxes

3) (To do: Use word count of discussions following each deletion/creation as a very rough metric of the amount of "disruption" created by these actions.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Odd idea to use discussion as a measure of disruption. --Tony Sidaway 17:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Poor, but at least it's not subjective. brenneman 06:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Per above. - brenneman 22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps we could all review WP:OWN and understand that this is a workshop and accept that everyone has an equal right to put material here, and that if there are disagreements about the nature of that material, it's better to work with the other editor not against to them. The world does not explode if for a day or two everything on this page isn't exactly as any one editor would like it. (Insert wp:weasel) An outside observer would be forgiven for thinking that there are attempts to control these proceeding to ensure that only one narrative is presented. - brenneman 01:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"understand that this is a workshop and accept that everyone has an equal right to put material here" - this seems at odds with your suggestion to stop Tony from editing the pages of the arbitration against him while it is in progress - David Gerard 12:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The other hideous problem with this idea is that it measures the logorrhea of those opposing rather than the disruptiveness of the action. So, if you do something I don't like, how many words should I write to give a numerical measure of your disruptiveness? You can see the likely problem. Our trolls are a creative bunch and they love rules of this sort - David Gerard 14:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Crotalus horridus' recreation of userboxes

4) 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

5) 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)

Dispute over a proposal by Tony Sidaway on an RfC

5.1) 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. However, he had suggested "Then we'll review that in a month's time to see how everybody feels" and this was interpreted by some people as a promise to lay off these activities for the month of February, which he disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I dispute that I promised to stop deleting templates for a month. I find the idea that I would make a promise of that nature quite incredible. I proposed to lay off for a bit, and that's what I did. Even if I had not done so, this would not have represented wrongdoing on my part, though it would have been grossly uncivil to do so without good reason. Demonstrating flexibility and consideration for aggrieved feelings, even where one has not done wrong, is a good thing, but it is not a straitjacket. --Tony Sidaway 17:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What exactly do you dispute? That this is a reasonable intepretation of your words? Or are you just clarifying that this is not in fact what you meant? Anyhow, I don't really think our hair-splitting over exactly what you said and what you meant by it is very important. The diff speaks for itself and is short enough not to need summarizing. I'd think this was relevant to the proceedings because it is the reason Crotalus cites for filing the case. But of course we don't really know what angle he means to take on this since he hasn't started presenting his evidence yet. Haukur 16:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Haukurth. To interpret Tony's statement that he will "Stop deleting templates" followed two lines later with "Then we'll review that in a month's time to see how everybody feels." in any other way requires mental contortions that are beyond ridiculous. Nandesuka 21:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony also posted something simular to the mailing list..Geni 23:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony says he'll stop disputed activities and review the situation in a month

5.2) 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:

Current version is okay. I prefer 2.1 because it describes the dispute and does so accurately. --Tony Sidaway 13:11, 15 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)

Updated to include Tony's clarification that he didn't mean what we thought he meant. Haukur 16:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you produce a person who reads and does not come away with the impression that you intended to lay off disputed deletion activities for a month? Anyway, I don't care. I'm not trying to trap you in a lie or anything - I just wanted to explain where I think Crotalus is coming from in filing this case. But I enjoy writing about ancient poems much more than I enjoy this sort of legalistic wrangling and I think I'll lay off editing this workshop page. I just hope you lot can work out some sort of useful peace treaty. Haukur 11:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway deletes the cloned and recreated userboxes

6) 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. He then wrote about this on the noticeboard, saying "I don't doubt Crotalus horridus' good faith belief that he's doing nothing wrong here, but this kind of recreation is not right. Putting a template into user-space for the purpose of transclusion doesn't exempt it from the requirement of not being inflammatory and divisive",

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

7) 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 widely 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. Relevant to proposed principle 4 ("Jimbo as the ultimate authority")and proposed remedy 1 ("Crotalus admonished on policy"). --Tony Sidaway 03:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not germane to issues at hand. It has been stated by Tony Sidaway that "this case is not about userbox policy, which is a matter for the community to decide". There has been very little objections to the theory of this criterion, but a large amount of discussion regarding it's application. I'm also unclear why a simple retatement of the facts in this manner is not "evidence" when compared to some other objections regarding "misplaced" material. - brenneman 03:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is one of the central issues here. Among other things, C. horridus has repeatedly tried to invalidate this policy, and his recreation of templates was just one symptom of him acting in defiance of this CSD criterion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence that policy is widely accepted?Geni 13:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of people going against it, and the evidence in this case shows a lot of people applying it - David Gerard 13:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No everyone can go up against it. Going up against it risks directly challanging Jimbo something that at this time would appear to be inadviserble.Geni 13:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't even seen evidence they're going up against it indirectly. Where is this implied silent majority? - David Gerard 13:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is this silent majority who support it?Geni 06:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Notably not arguing about it - David Gerard 12:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My view: I'd like us not to have divisive and inflammatory userboxes. But I don't think adding a speedy deletion criterion for them is a suitable approach. In fact I think it throws a monkey-wrench into the whole speedy-deletion system. Every other speedy deletion criterion is a) easy to interpret, b) has overwhelming support. The one we're discussing is hard to interpret, there is wide disagreement on what it means and there is no consensus for having it to begin with. If an admin speedies something according to any other criterion it means in 99% of cases that the item wouldn't stand a chance on XfD. When an admin deletes a userbox by this new criterion odds are that it would be kept on TfD. In short, the new speedy deletion criterion doesn't work like any other speedy deletion criterion. It doesn't fit in with the system, it's grafted onto it in an ugly way. It makes a mockery of the text on top of WP:CSD: This page is an official policy on the English Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors. When someone disagrees with the speedy deletion of a normal article or item it can simply be undeleted and run through the XfD process. Because the small handful of admins who are deleting userboxes know that TfD doesn't give them the results they want this is not acceptable to them. Thus we get wheel-wars.

Now, in my opinion there is indeed a problem in that TfD seems to be unable to delete any userbox, no matter how stupid, useless and inflammatory. I've seen keep votes on TfD with arguments like: "Nobody's actually going to go out and kill people because they saw this". That's setting the bar pretty low. I can understand that out of frustration people resort to speedy-deletion. I wish I had a good solution to this. All I know is that T1 is not a good solution. It leads to endless debates on what exactly is divisive and what exactly is inflammatory. Look at Tony's talk page for some "You deleted A but not B! Why? B is at least as divisive as A!" arguments. This is inevitable with wording as nebulous as "divisive and inflammatory". If we have to have a speedy-deletion criterion for userboxes can't we at least have something that is clear? Something that everyone will interpret the same way? Banning all templates which are only used on user-pages would be one clear (if wildly unpopular) solution. That seems to be what a lot of people are angling for anyway. I mean, Tony has deleted boxes with texts like: "This user would like to wish you a happy Halloween." Haukur 10:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people are going up against it: Aaron Brenneman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has removed speedy deletion tags which refer to this criterion, and Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has asked at least one other admin not to apply it. Nobody has yet convinced me that "divisive and inflammatory" templates should be allowed on Misplaced Pages, and so I apply the criterion with the spirit of constraint which was requested of all admins by Jimbo. No admin has used this criteria to conduct as mass deletion of all political and religious userboxes, for example. Physchim62 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that some are going up against it (and does that make Aaron a subject of this arbitration case?), but I'm not seeing anything resembling evidence that it's not widely accepted and I do see a lot of acceptance of it - David Gerard 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen people remove CSD T1 tags while questioning whether they conform to policy. That is fine. However, if T1 tags were removed out of opposition to CSD policy, that would be a problem. I'll look into this and will put any findings into evidence. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The Userboxes account was used to circumvent deletion of templates

8) 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

9) 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:

The operation of User:Userboxes was an abuse of Misplaced Pages

10) Crotalus horridus' operation of his secondary account was not acceptable. Users may not operate a secondary account for the purpose of recreating deleted templates in the userspace to serve as drop-in replacements for the deleted templates. If a user believes that a template has been wrongly deleted the undeletion policy provides appropriate mechanisms for recreation, or he can be bold and rewrite the template with content that does not merit speedy deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Either this or 11. See proposed principle 5; anyone can apply to have a deletion reviewed by Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. I've reworded to tighten it up and added a reference to undeletion and permissible rewrite. I should add that I have no particular beliefs on whether Crotalus' actions are wrong or right, although I think it would be sensible to ask the question. This arbitration case is about my conduct: did I act unreasonably in immediately removing what I perceived to be disruptive edits? --Tony Sidaway 03:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This dichotomy does not strike me as useful. In some cases it is undoubtedly inappropriate to recreate deleted templates in userspace. In other cases it may well be appropriate. We're probably better off focusing on the specific case in question. Haukur 12:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that this is not helpful pair of sections. "Aaron has stopped beating his wife" vs. "Aaron has not stopped beating his wife". I'm sure that I've seen "userfy" as a recomendation during TfD and DrV before. While this bit of rules-lawyering on Crotalus' part wasn't helpful, to put it in the context of admin/Morlock conflict it has some justification. These should be combined into a more nuanced section. - brenneman 02:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Userfy doesn't mean to move it into userspace and then use it has a mass-produced template; the use of User:Userbox was a clear effort to use wikilawyering to evade CSD T1. I don't know about the dichotomy, but the point made in this statement seems to me to be precisely accurate. No nuances necessary. -- SCZenz 02:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that, as below, this in part presumes that the deletion was correct. It fails totally to take into account the power imbalance between an admin willing to repeatedly delete something (regardless of consensus to do so) and a vanilla editor attempting to "fight back". Unless in some way paired with a statement regarding repeated unilateral deletions, a finding like this in effect says that only non-admins can edit war with regards to deletion and restoration. Lets be frank: while we may not approve, this is an understandable course of action when TfD, DRV, and ANI discussions are ignored and the "war on userboxes" continues to be carried forward. - brenneman 05:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The notion that a "vanilla editor" can/should "fight back" against an admin is much of the problem in all of these proceedings. If an administrator is being abusive, the appropriate recourse (for anyone, admin or not) is to post on WP:AN and see if there is consensus to reverse the admin's actions. Wheel warring is bad, and what one might call "poor man's wheel-warring"—that is, getting around deletions with sneaky recreations—is equally bad. I believe ArbCom should condemn them both. -- SCZenz 18:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well stated. And everything that goes on WP:AN or WP:ANI does get looked over by other admins, whether they bother posting about it or not - David Gerard 13:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The operation of User:Userboxes was not an abuse of Misplaced Pages

11) Crotalus horridus' operation of his secondary account was acceptable. Users may recreate deleted templates in their userspace to serve as drop-in replacements for the deleted templates and it is acceptable to use a "role account" for the purpose.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Either this or 10. --Tony Sidaway 12:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Uh...not really. In the first place, this presumes that the deletion was correct. Otherwise if some rogue admin deleted, say, template:main and protected it from recreation, and I (hypothetically, remember) decided to recreate it in my userspace, I would fall foul of this. Let's not be slaves to process/policy. Johnleemk | Talk 12:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If a template is wrongly deleted, it should be undeleted by consensus, not recreated in userspace. As much as I'd love to have User:SCZenz/Main be part of the main page, it doesn't make any sense. -- SCZenz 23:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not? If common sense tells you the admin was just plain crazy, why not do it? (Especially if the original deletion was itself out of process.) I'm thinking along the lines of a WP:SNOW situation here. (Not that that applies to this particular case; I'm just thinking that this FoF appears to unnecessarily create a false dichotomy.) Johnleemk | Talk 06:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If common sense tells me the admin was completely nuts, I'd recreate the page in the proper place. If I think the admin was dead wrong, but aknowledged the position was arguable—and the situation wasn't an urgent emergency—then I would go to an appropriate page and build consensus. I would not use userspace inappropriately and hope the admin didn't notice. -- SCZenz 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A number of the pages have been protected against recreation.18:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's where building consensus comes in. -- SCZenz 00:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The nature of T1 speedy deletions

12) A number of templates have been deleted by different administrators under the T1 speedy deletion criterion. While individual opinions by reasonable people may vary, the nature of the templates speedy deleted can fairly be characterized as tending to promote controversy rather than to inform, and inviting the reader to either agree or disagree with the opinion stated. Examples include: "This user opposes the Iraq War and advocates immediate troop withdrawal", "This user thinks that the USA is a police state", "This user believes that George W. Bush's edits to the constitution need to be reverted," "This user thinks pacifists make good target practice" and "This user accepts that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but sure wishes the United States were one.". Such bald statements, without nuance, elaboration or context, amount to no more than slogans, and have never been encouraged on Misplaced Pages. Some are grossly ucivil and, while seeking to amuse, are also clearly calculated to cause offense. See Evidence -T1 deletions

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've dig out the whole lot and put descriptions in evidence. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a biased re-telling of events. It fails to detail how many other administrators have deleted templates as decisive both before and after the new CSD, it fails to detail the number of templates deleted by these administrators, and has chosen as examples only the most egregious of deleted templates. - brenneman 02:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Misplaced Pages by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. Physchim62 (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's participation in the userbox debate

13) Tony Sidaway has engaged fully in the userbox debate, providing figures and analysis from the Misplaced Pages database. ,,,,.,, expressing his fear of developing an antagonistic culture on Misplaced Pages, but welcoming and supporting and extending Jimbo's initiative to change the culture of Misplaced Pages . His contributions on this issue have been on both mailing lists , , and the wiki, in appropriate policy and talk pages ,, his questions to all other arbitration committee canddidates , and elsewhere.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Although most of the diffs I give point to the mailing list, it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of my comments on this issue have been on the wiki. Not that this matters. The mailing list is open to all and the archives are open. --Tony Sidaway 13:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ten of these fourteen diffs point to the mailing list. Policy by fiat now says that mailing list discussions are not to be used to claim consensus on-wiki. The other four diffs fail to show Tony engaging in any meaningful dialog. Also notable absent are diffs of other editor asking Tony to stop deleting user boxes. I'll provide those presently. - brenneman 02:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of the mailing list for discussions of Misplaced Pages policy is one of Jimbo's principles. This statement only says he's discussed it, not that he claims consensus. -- SCZenz 18:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't like policy statements or discussions on the mailing list ... but stuff happens on the lists that is policy of the top-down, rather than consensus, variety. "Consensus" is not necessarily applicable here - David Gerard 13:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway vehemently opposes "vote stacking" tools

14) Tony Sidaway has expressed his concerns regarding possible misuse of templates and categories in terms of "this must die" and "kill it with fire".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"This must die" is certainly one of mine; it turns up in the diffs I provide for my proposed finding of fact 17. "Kill it with fire" probably not, although I agree with the sentiment. That templates have been abused in this way is beyond question. For instance Pitchka (talk · contribs) (aka Dwain) between 2336 on 15 December, 2005 and 0254 the following morning contacted some 55 editors who had a pro-life userbox on their page with the following message:

• "Pro-life celebrities category up for deletion!. Hi, I see that you are listed as a Pro-Life Wikipedian, well the Pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion. Category:Pro-life celebrities. The abortion zealots don't want anyone to think that any celebrity is actually pro-life."

There are other examples, though I think that this would be getting off the subject somewhat. --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Establishes Tony Sidaway's animus and motive for performing his actions. Based only on my (fallible) memeory at this stage, will tighten when difs found. - brenneman 05:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In light of comments like this one, Tony's position seems rather reasonable. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway states repeated deletion is an acceptable editing methodology

15) In response to concerns regarding his repeated deletion of restored material Tony Sidaway has dismissed these as "kerfuffle". In response to a complaint by DESiegel that "I undeleted this , and he re-deelted it. i am not going to get into a wheel-war by redeleting it. i think this deletion is out-of-process, and given the various policy discussions no ongoing, very unwise." Tony responded in a statement beginning "Reply to DESiegal:" that he considered this "a good way to cook".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The phrase "a good way to cook" refers to my pioneering of the use of speedy deletion of objectionable templates backed up by confirmation on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review as can be seen from the diff. This mechanism is now enshrined in the T1 speedy deletion criterion, which has the imprimatur of Jimbo Wales. -The proposed finding of fact also blatantly misrepresents my views on repeated deletion (which is something only to be performed in extreme cases such as incitement to vandalism, as with the original GWB template).

I would also point out that, although he has now provided citations, Aaron is still incorrectly describing my words "a good way to cook", as a defense of repeated deletion. In fact my words were a response to this edit by DESiegel in which he discusses his Misplaced Pages:Process is important essay. In the first sentence I say, referring to the essay, "I'm sure that it says lots of useful things." --Tony Sidaway 19:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Goes to establish disregard for proposed principle 11: Respect. - brenneman 05:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Expanded to include more context of discussion. The statements that was a "pioneering" action and "backed up by confirmation on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review" call on facts not in evidence. When last this template left DRV it was happily restored, per links provided below. I'd also note that this template is currently a blue link. - brenneman 13:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway has engaged in repeated reversal of other admin's action

16) Tony Sidaway has on several occasions repeatedly reversed the actions of other admins. Most notable of these are the the George Bush template re-deleted four times after restoration by three different admins while debate was ongoing, and the Alliance of Catholic Wikipedians re-deleted seven times after restoration by five different admins , also while deletion discussions were ongoing. The Arbitration Committee has stated that undoing an administrative action by another administrator without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just starting to look over this case, but I don't see these in the evidence page. If there is a claim that wheel warred with (or "repeatedly reversed") others, can we have a clearly formatted section on the evidence page laying out each page/incident this happened, with links to the logs? Presenting original evidence on the workshop becomes cumbersome, and it's best to put it in one place first, and then move the pertinent stuff here. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 09:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

See my proposed findings of fact 17 and 18, which give a more detailed analysis of the events and those involved. My response is that I acted in a manner proportionate to the danger to the encyclopedia, while explaining and defending my actions fully. --Tony Sidaway 16:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Also goes to establish disregard for proposed principle 11: Respect. - brenneman 05:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Expanded a bit. This is relevent because while I can not condone many of Crotalus' actions, it's important to understand the milieu in which they occur. Extreme behavior begets extreme behavior, and when heavy-handed tactics are used in preference to debate, we shouldn't be suprised at sub-optimal outcomes. - brenneman 12:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so as I understand it your entire response to this is "but I was right"? - brenneman 13:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway deletes the Catholic Alliance of Misplaced Pages project page

17) At 21:05, 24 December 2005, Shanedidona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created a page in Misplaced Pages project space called Misplaced Pages:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. This page was avowedly intended: "for the purpose of rallying voting on articles about topics such as abortion. This is a pro-life group." This page was not compatible with the aims of Misplaced Pages and constituted an overt and conscious attempt at organized vote stacking. At 00:56 the following day, Aecis (talk · contribs) listed it for deletion.

In response, Shanedidona used the category system built into the Catholic userboxes and contacted over 40 users who were listed as Catholics and asked them to "please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia" . This was another overt and conscious attempt to influence the result of debate on Misplaced Pages by manipulating the proportion of committed Roman Catholics who were involved.

At 13:09, Extreme Unction (talk · contribs) reposted a copy of a comment by Aecis, the nominator, in which Aecis showed that every single keep voter in the debate had done so after being spammed by Shanedidona . At that time there was a clear consensus to delete the article. Tony Sidaway deleted it and announced this: "I have deleted this as "Not remotely compatible with Misplaced Pages's policy of neutrality." .

Over the following days the page was repeatedly restored by administrators who claimed that it was an out-of-process deletion, three times by Nandesuka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), twice by Sean_Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and once each by Fennec (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Musical_Linguist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and Karmafist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and deleted eight times by Tony Sidaway, while the clear consensus to delete continued. The debate was finally closed after three days, at 01:39, 28 December by NicholasTurnbull (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who also deleted the page.

During the debate, Tony Sidaway continued to discuss and defended his actions. ,,,,, saying:

"Campaigning of this type against our policy of neutrality must be stamped out ruthlessly, deleted on sight. In accordance with this I again delete this project page. There is a clear and insurmountable consensus to delete this, and even if there were not, it and every project page like it would still have to be deleted because of its conflict with that policy. Please do not restore this."

He also submitted his conduct to review by the arbitration committee, which rejected the case by (0/4/0/0) after seven days .

It is the position of Tony Sidaway that it was necessary to delete the page immediately because the debate on its deletion had already shown a clear consensus to delete, and the debate itself was being abused as a focal point for ongoing attempts to subvert the neutrality policy.

Those admins who undeleted the page indicated that they thought that taking unilateral action while the community was discussing the issue was disrespectful and against the deletion policy,, and because they Tony's actions were per se disruptive in the same way as edit warring and 3RR violations. It is the position of Tony Sidaway that the page clearly had not a snowball's chance in hell of not being deleted, and that the undeleters were process-wrangling for the sake of it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A factual account of circumstances pertaining to the deletion of the page. If these actions were wrong I should not be an administrator. It doesn't matter how often it was restored by others. The only cause served by its continued existence was as a rallying point for the creator of the original page, whose avowed intention and continued actions constituted the attempted manipulation of debate in favor of a particular point of view. But I've added the numbers. --Tony Sidaway 15:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The comment Nandesuka is looking for is listed above :

Every single word is as true, relevant and consistent with our prime directive--the neutrality policy--as when I first wrote them in December last year. Nothing comes before the neutrality policy, ever. Not even consensus, and certainly not straw polls. --Tony Sidaway 02:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder about the tenor of Nandesuka's comments here. My deletions, he says, were viewed as "disrespectful" and "One can absolutely believe that the page should have been deleted, yet recognize that Tony deleted it in a particularly odious and disruptive manner." In the deletion debate, he said: "agree that there will certainly be consensus to delete this. That is a lousy reason to not let our consensus deletion process run its course" . Nandesuka seems to be very close to admitting that, in his three undeletions of this moribund page, which openly violated our most treasured policy and for which a strong consensus to delete was evident within hours of the nomination, he was deliberately disrupting Misplaced Pages in order to make a point about process.. If he thought there was no chance that the page would survive the debate (which seems obvious), he had no business undeleting it at all. --Tony Sidaway 04:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Karmafist restored it once, Fennec restored it once, Nandesuka restored it thrice, Sean Black restored it twice, and Musical Linguist restored it once while Tony Sidaway deleted it eight times.
It helps when forming these statements to be accurate in language, and to avoid weasel words like "repeatedly" wherever possible.
brenneman 14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Tony was not alone in this. Many other people (on IRC and elsewhere) recognised that this group and the page had a clear purpose to push POV on Misplaced Pages. If Tony had not spared us the effort, many of us, including me, would have done the same thing. --Improv 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  What Tony was alone in was in taking unilateral action in a way that a number of people in the community, including admins, viewed as disrespectful. In fact, you'll note that a number of the undeleting admins spoke out against the page, or voted to delete it. One can absolutely believe that the page should have been deleted, yet recognize that Tony deleted it in a particularly odious and disruptive manner. Nandesuka 01:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This finding of fact seems like a bit of puffery to me. Tony did not delete the page seven times in three days because the consensus on WP:MFD was to delete; he deleted the page seven times in three days in in spite of the community consensus; as this very finding of fact acknowledges, Tony has made it clear that had the consensus in deletion been otherwise, he would have deleted anyway. Nicholas Turnbull, by actually closing the debate and taking action pursuant to the discussion provides a useful counterexample for how one can constructively ignore all rules, and yet still not seem to be treating the community consensus process with contempt. Tony seems to have simply been choosing to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. Nandesuka 01:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

See, that's what I mean when I say above that you really aren't understanding WP:POINT - it's about doing things you don't want to happen to make a point - David Gerard 13:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, Zoe, Doc glasgow and Carbonite delete the George Bush vandalism userbox template

18) At 19:42, 25 December 2005, Celestianpower (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) created a userbox template Template:User GWB with the wording "This user hates George W. Bush and wishes they didn't have to revert vandalism there." The name of the President was linked to the article about the President, which is one of the most vandalized articles on Misplaced Pages.

It is the position of Tony Sidaway that this was not only an unsuitable statement for a template but also amounted, through the transclusion mechanism, to multiple cases of incitement to vandalize the article in the manner of "Don't stick beans up your nose."

At 11:20, 10 January 2006, Tony Sidaway deleted this template as part of a group of attack templates which had been brought to his attention by Doc_glasgow. He listed them all for review on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review .

Over the next thirteen hours the template was repeatedly deleted, five times by Tony Sidaway, once each by Doc glasgow, Zoe and Carbonite, and restored three times by Jtdirl, and once each by Celestian Power, Dragons flight, DESiegel and Alai. The template was eventually edited to say "This user opposes George W. Bush and vandalism of his Misplaced Pages biography" without any link to the article.

Before, throughout, and after this incident, Tony Sidaway announced, explained and defended his actions , ,,,.,, and produced a gallery of the templates so that non-administrators could see what had been deleted .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A factual account of circumstances pertaining to the deletion of the template. If these actions were wrong I should not be an administrator. Again the number of times it was restored is immaterial. The template was an ongoing vandalism risk and needed to be killed immediately. But I've added the numbers. --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Again, accuracy. Dragons flight restored it once, Celestianpower restored it once, DESiegel restored it once, Jtdirl restored it twice, Alai restored it once, and Jtdirl restored it a final time. Carbonite deleted it once, Zoe deleted it once, Doc glasgow deletd it once, and Tony Sidaway deleted if five times. To avoid mentioning these numbers explicitly and to use the more vague term "repeatedly" may unintentionally cause the casual reader to overlook the fact that Tony Sidaway deleted this template more times than the other three deleting admins combined.
brenneman 15:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo considers the present userbox situation not acceptable

19) Jimbo Wales has stated recently, on reviewing the contents of the Political beliefs userboxes page which had grown in size from 45 userboxes to 150 userboxes in six weeks, : "My only comment on the userbox situation is that the current situation is not acceptable." As project leader, he has intervened on at least three occasions on userboxes in less than four weeks: once to make a plea: "I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time", a second time to resolve a serious wheel war involving a controversial userbox(pedophile userbox case), and more recently to revert the deletion of the newly created speedy deletion criterion, the T1 criterion for divisive and inflammatory templates and to make a plea for "a thoughtful process of change" .

On wikien-l he has said " I heard today that the number of userboxes, and in particular the number of very problematic userboxes, has exploded" and "I am not doing anything about it just yet, but I am willing to concede that my nonviolent social request that people knock it off and think about what it means to be a Wikipedian has not gotten very far." .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In response to comments, I've expanded David's original version greatly, citing Jimbo's three major interventions related to userbox templates (one of which involved his personally desysopping a number of administrators). I'll submit my transcript of Jimbo's very brief comments from the IRC interview. As he's able to read and make private comments on the Committee's mailing list, he can clarify his meaning in private if necessary. I have also added quotes from Jimbo's message last night on wikien-l. The situation is clearly very grave. --Tony Sidaway 15:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

See added principle that goes with this - David Gerard 11:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sadly there was no explanation of exactly what isn't acceptable. Is it the presence of the userboxes which was not acceptable, and in that case which userboxes are the unacceptable ones? Or is it the fighting over them which is unacceptable? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it needs more references. There was past explanation on the mailing list (most of January's archive is a free-floating flamewar on the subject, but if you skip to just the posts from Jimbo you can save a lot of time. are somewhat apposite to this case, if only tangentially to this FoF - David Gerard 13:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Is repeated speedy deletion against consensus part of supporting 'a plea for "a thoughtful process of change"', or is it against it? This seems the crux of this entire RfAr... is what Tony does a difficult and masterful defense of the principles of the encyclopedia in the face of opposition that is at least in part unfounded, or is it contributing to the divisiveness and interfereing with getting the right set of changes to process, policy and practice made? ++Lar: t/c 15:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka undeletes Catholic Alliance of Misplaced Pages three times

20) On December 27, 2005, during the course of the deletion debate Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia, in response to what he perceived as ongoing wheel warring over an out-of-process deletion by Tony Sidaway, Nandesuka undeleted the page three times, at 20:15, 20:54 and 23:31. At the time, the WP:MfD process was still ongoing, and was heading towards a consensus to delete. and he stated at 20:17, in discussing his first undeletion, that "there will certainly be consensus to delete this," and reprimanded Tony Sidaway for "cutting short the debate."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Since I don't think Nandesuka and I will agree on wording, I've created an alternative below which I think is closer to the facts of the case and avoids what I consider to be weaseling. I also give the vote tally at the time he undeleted: 52-9. That's a massive consensus to delete by any standard. --Tony Sidaway 09:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nandesuka undeletes Catholic Alliance of Misplaced Pages three times in the face of a massive consensus to delete

20.1) On December 27, 2005, during the course of the deletion debate Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia, in response to what he perceived as ongoing wheel warring over an out-of-process deletion by Tony Sidaway, Nandesuka undeleted the page three times, at 20:15, 20:54 and 23:31 although, despite strong evidence of attempted vote stacking, there was already a massive consensus of 52 to 9 for delete and he stated at 20:17, in announcing his first undeletion, that "there will certainly be consensus to delete this," and reprimanded Tony Sidaway for "cutting short the debate."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is up to the arbitration committee to decide whether you will be a party to this case.

I just don't see how anyone can say "there will certainly be consensus to delete this" and then undelete the page in question three times so that some debate can trundle on to a foregone conclusion. That's absolutely absurd. This isn't a debating forum, it's a working encyclopedia. Bin trash and get on with writing articles. --Tony Sidaway 04:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I am not a party to this case, so I'm not sure what the relevance of a finding of fact including me is. However, to the extent you wish to include it, the summary is inaccurate, since "there will be consensus" is not the same thing as "there is consensus," and since you omit a number of relevant facts. I have tried to correct it, and you have cloned it above. Furthermore, the other admins who undeleted the article also acknowledged that it would likely be deleted. I think your motives here are fairly transparent. Nandesuka 20:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You should surely assume better faith - David Gerard 23:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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:

Crotalus admonished on policy

1) Crotalus horridus is admonished to avoid removing well established policy statements, whatever his misgivings, without careful and thoughtful discussion of the implications.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Related to proposed principle 4, "Jimbo as the ultimate authority", which was adopted 8-0 with 2 abstentions in the peodphile userbox wheel war case. Although I think the dire warnings of desysoppings and other retribution uttered by some in the discussion were somewhat misplaced, I think it's going a bit far to remove an entire criterion for deletion once it has been supported by Jimbo, an act which was accepted widely as an honest attempt by Jimbo to resolve a policy logjam, and used successfully by several administrators. This Crotalus did on February 12th. --Tony Sidaway 21:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Kim's well stated concerns, I have added ", without careful and thoughtful discussion of the implications." We all know that we change Misplaced Pages policy not so much by changing words on the wiki as by changing our minds, . For major changes, that requires discussion--discussion that had been strongly urged in this case by Jimbo himself. --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The T1 policy was less than a week old when Crotalus horridus removed them, and the policy was (and remains) the subject of intense debate. Given that, we cannot truthfully call this policy "well established". --Aaron 16:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to remove this CSD must explain why they think that "divisive and inflammatory" userboxes benefit the project. I'm not sure that even Crotalus goes that far in . Physchim62 (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No they have the option of showing that speedy delete is not the correct way of dealing with any such problem.Geni 14:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if we ignore Crotalus' edits to CSD, he has on several occasions edited well-established policy pages without obtaining a consensus, including WP:IAR and WP:BP. All his edits were reverted. I'm planning to submit this into evidence in more detail. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You realise that this will be opening the door to Tony's editing of policy and guideline pages, don't you?
brenneman 06:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad bad plan. Recognises "policy" as such, disallows any form of guideline maintenance. Revolution would follow. Kim Bruning 12:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If a policy is well-established by consensus, it's a good idea to discuss it first, so I don't see the problem with this. But never mind that debate; the real issue is that Crotalus reverted Jimbo. What Jimbo writes as policy is policy, and not to be removed lightly by other editors. -- SCZenz 16:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway admonished on use of adminstrator's powers

2) Tony Sidaway is admonished to be respectful of consensus in use of SysOp rights. While boldness in editing is valuable on Misplaced Pages, this does not extend to essential housekeeping chores. It is no use to Misplaced Pages to have administrator actions that create unnecessary dissent.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems a quite likely outcome. Encouragment to ask question first and shoot later would save everyone a lot of trouble.
brenneman 01:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Destroys IAR. How about "Tony Sidaway admonished to use common sense". at least, if it is found that he does not have any. (Which is an interesting question which may need answering) Kim Bruning 12:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"common sense" has no place in rational theory. The above has no effect on properly applied IAR.Geni 13:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can make no sense of your statement. IAR is about common sense - David Gerard 13:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok step by step. It can be shown that "common sense" has no place in rational theory by a simple demonstration of allowing people to use "common sense" in the field of probabilty to try and solve problems and then compare their answers to those produced by maths. It can be shown from this the predictions and claims "common sense" are fairly easy to falisify thus we have no reason no to drop the hypothsis.

The above ruleing would have no effect on IAR since if you are worried about the exact wording of the rule and sorounding policy you appear to have missed the point somewhere.

IAR is not based on common sense. The intial version (ie the article editing one) was simply based on the premise that anyone who was here to write an encyopedia and did so was unlikely to go far enough wrong to need to worry about policy. The admin version was based on the premise that there are situtations where policy will be in error and in those situtations it may be more important to do the right thing rather than follow the exact letter of policy. The right thing not the "common sense" thing.Geni 03:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, got it. I agree - the right thing, i.e. the sensible thing, with "common sense" not being the best wording for what we're talking about - David Gerard 14:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Awful. "It is no use to Misplaced Pages to have administrator actions that create dissent" is an overly general statement crafted for a single example, and that's how to make bad law. There should be a better statement of this that won't see admins penalised for using their judgement because a bunch of people can shout louder - David Gerard 13:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Added "unnecessary". In nearly every "kerfuffle" on this page, the desired results could have been achieved without disruption either by using harmonius editing or through rational discourse. To choose the path of maximum resistance just because you can is not good for the encyclopedia. - brenneman 05:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway to be desysopped

3) Tony Sidaway has repeatedly shown egregiously poor judgement as an administrator and is to be desysopped at the end of this case. If he wishes to apply for sysop powers again, he may do so after two months have passed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See proposed principle 12 and my comments in proposed findings of fact 17 and 18. The period is arbitrary; if I were asked to hand back my bit, I would be unlikely ever to want to apply for it again. Either my judgement is sound or it is not and (since I'm not a teenager any more) that is unlikely to change much over time. --Tony Sidaway 18:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Seriously no. If you have to go here, how about banning him from deletion debates. (Although this might perhaps be an arbitration committee version of disrupting to make a point) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Bruning (talk • contribs) 12:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking no sides on whether Tony should be desysopped or not, I think the two month period goes way over the line. Ral315 (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll concur. The idealology of the Tony making an act of disruption to the encyclopedia has no basis of fact, nor a specific concensus from established discussion per the community. -Zero 18:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't this proposed remedy written entirely by Tony? Has anyone else even edited the text? And hasn't Tony proposed that he be dead-minned at least four times now?
brenneman 22:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(a) Utterly irrelevant. Write one you like. (b) Do you mean you don't want this to happen? - David Gerard 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway to not undo any administrative action undertaken by another admin more than once in a seven day period

4) Tony Sidaway is forbidden from reversing any administrative actions on a particular item more than once per 7 day period. "Administrative actions on a particular item" here means, for example, deleting a specific page that has been restored. So if two pages, foo and bar had been restored by another admin, and Tony Sidaway had not performed the original deletion, he could delete those pages once each. If either of those pages was subsequently restored a second time, he would be enjoined from deleting it again for 7 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unnecessary and prejudicial. Show findings of fact to support this, please.

Tony has a habit of repeatedly reverting other administrative actions. No. Only the especially poor ones. This should not be a problem for Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 01:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It seems to me that this addresses the crux of many of Tony's (in my opinion) disruptive behaviors that are catalogued above, while preserving his ability to be a valuable and effective administrator. Its main effect would be to encourage Tony to operate in controversial areas by persuasion rather than wheel warring, which I think can only help him mature as a contributor. Nandesuka 21:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what Tony means by calling this "prejudicial." It's a suggested remedy to prevent recurrence of the problems that are clearly spelled out in findings of fact 15 (Tony Sidaway states repeated deletion is an acceptable editing methodology), 16 (Tony Sidaway has engaged in repetitive reversal of other admin's action), 17 (Tony Sidaway deletes the Catholic Alliance of Misplaced Pages project page), and 18 (Tony Sidaway, Zoe, Doc glasgow and Carbonite delete the George Bush vandalism userbox template), all of which demonstrate that Tony has a habit of repeatedly reverting other administrative actions.

• This "remedy" would be very unfortunate -- Tony's actions do not stand out as unique, nor is his perspective rare. I believe that in retrospect, most of his efforts will be seen to have been both for the good of the community and justified by core policies. There is a large-scale culture clash that this case is one data point in, and Tony is just one member of those who do things that may be unpopular for the moment but in the long run are good for Misplaced Pages. --Improv 01:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you really find another recent example of an admin in good standing who reversed the actions of multiple admins 7 times in 3 days? I don't think you can. Nandesuka 01:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Show that he did it in bad judgement first. Kim Bruning 12:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? One does n0ot depend on the other.Geni 13:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

For it to be a problem would seem to require that the actions were, in fact, wrong, no? Michael Ralston 04:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You are bringing up another issues that does not directly depend on the previous ones.Geni 06:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka cautioned

5) WP:POINT. Nandesuka is cautioned to avoid using his sysop powers to express concern at the actions of others. If he believes that another sysop has done the right thing in the wrong way, he should explain why he thinks this is the wrong way, not do the wrong thing in retaliation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See proposed principle 14.1 (Two wrongs don't make a right) and proposed finding of fact 20 or 20.1 (both are applicable). If the arbitration committee should decide to take this up, there would be nothing to stop them reprimanding whoever they please. It's entirely up to them. --Tony Sidaway 21:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Point of order: I'd like the arbitrators to clarify whether I am a party to this arbitration or not. At the present time, I don't believe I am, which makes proposing remedies concerning me inappropriate. Nor do I think Tony has adequately explained why he believes it is appropriate to add a remedy concerning me, but not any of the other five editors who reacted to his out of process deletion. Nandesuka 20:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether you're in isn't your decision - David Gerard 01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Neither is it Tony's or yours, unless you were appointed as an arbitrator when I wasn't looking. The germane issue is that I was not a party to this case when it was accepted, and no one had made any formal complaints about my administrative actions until I dared to participate in this Workshop page.

Curious, that. One might almost say "chilling." In any event, if I magically become a party to this arbitration because I touched the tar baby, I deserve to be formally notified. I don't want to be — I think a far more appropriate way to go about this is to file a new RfArb so that the Arbcom can consider my allegedly scandalous conduct and decide if they are interested in hearing it. But as you say, that's their decision — not mine, not Tony's, and certainly not yours. Nandesuka 04:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say or imply it was my decision ... I'm just another editor now - David Gerard 15:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added WP:POINT to the beginning of this one, because it's a textbook WP:POINT violation using admin powers - David Gerard 01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes limited

6) Rather than permitting all userboxes and disallowing only the worst ones, policy shall follow the model on de: and move to certain userboxes being permitted and all others limited or forbidden. Userboxes for human languages spoken and for geographic location are unlimited. A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD, except those susceptible to speedy deletion under T1.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Draconian solution for a problem I'm not sure we have. I want to investigate the situation first, rather than jumping to this slash and burn solution. Fred Bauder 16:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Cutting the Gordian knot. de: has Babel and location only and has yet to collapse in user civil war. I deliberately didn't include "and others per community consensus" as (a) purported "community consensus" going against the actual aims of the project was how we got into this mess and (b) any attempted "community consensus" on the subject of userboxes has become a festering mess of sockpuppets, meatpuppets, getting the vote out, wheel warring, process-addict querulousness versus hipshooting IAR and several multi-volume fantasy epics' worth of flamewars. The "or other means" takes care of the userbox warriors. Alternate version: The Arbcom recommends to Jimbo a declaration of this as policy. - David Gerard 15:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, since when does ArbCom get to legislate policy? Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hence "Alternate version: The Arbcom recommends to Jimbo a declaration of this as policy." The AC doesn't, but the mess has arrived at their doorstep. In any case, I think something like this is needed at this stage, however we arrive at it. I'd also like ideas on what other varieties of userbox should be on the "permitted" list - David Gerard 15:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

And furthermore, I think we've had more than enough evidence enough to form principles and FoFs to support every clause of the above. (And now you know how AC decisions actually tend to be written: write a remedy and then work out why you thought it was a good idea in terms of principles and FoFs.) The only question is whether the above would make the community (bless 'em) collectively cough up their own skulls. Or at least those parts of the community who have made more edits to articles than to userboxes - David Gerard 15:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that I'm not entirely convinced this is a great idea precisely as worded myself; I wanted to try writing an extreme version and working down from there. (Note also that my own userpage presently falls afoul of this one.) However, I do think switching userboxes from default-allow to default-deny is a good idea. - David Gerard 15:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also floated it on wikien-l, which should keep its readers happily occupied for a while - David Gerard 15:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If you knocked out the T1 one thing what makes you think you couldn't get community consensus with a little debate? Of course if you did get it through we could have the fun arguments over what exactly counts as a userbox and is 133t a lanugage (you get round that one by limiting languages to those there are wikipedias for).Geni 15:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I like that last one - Wikipedias or proposed Wikipedias (knowing who speaks Cantonese is conceivably useful to the encyclopedia). We could also have an explicit deny list on the "other userboxes" thing - political advocacy is TFDable if not speedyable, that sort of thing.

Very little point of haveing them for proposed langauges. Solidly defineing what isn't allowed (but rember anything can be put through TFD regardless) would make T1 less of an abuse of CSD.Geni 16:42, 17 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:

I am very disturbed by the progress of this Arbitration to date. The course of the proceedings have been straightjacketed both by the preponderance of material contributed by a single editors, and the selective editing of the page. There is no urgency here, this is a collective page. Removing, or "moving" with no indication left behind, could be seen as attempts to colour the proceedings. I'd ask all involved to use a bit more caution. - brenneman 22:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think Tony is simply trying to get the findings-of-fact to conform to what ArbCom typically produces, something he knows as much about as almost anyone. I think it would be a good idea for him not to do such editing in this case, but I also think implying that he's somehow manipulating the proceedings is unhelpful. -- SCZenz 23:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be frank I also am trying to "manipulate" the proceedings. I simply feel that the methods chosen to do so should be as equitable and transparent as possible. The combination of almost 70% of the edits being by Tony and the repreated removal of material placed by others begins to make it very difficult for this to proceed in a way which will result in an unbiased outcome. - brenneman 23:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

He's not doing anything that isn't sensible, and obviously you're watching him, so you can restore anything that ought to be here. You've not given any rationale for why him cleaning up the page would bias the proceedings--only that it looks bad. -- SCZenz 00:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)