Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aaron Brenneman (talk | contribs) at 22:47, 23 February 2006 (→Tony was right: There does not exist a proposed finding "Tony was wrong"). 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

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

Userbox deletion stopped

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

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)

I'd like to see Tony agree that he'll leave refactoring to others, and Aaron agree that this proposed injunction be withdrawn. I don't think this is either going to happen or going to do any good if it stays out here, and it might help foster a bit of good-will if it's mutually agreed-upon to be unnecessary. (Not to mention the benefits of cleaning up this page a bit more.) Michael Ralston 19:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway banned from editing these arbitration pages

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

Aaron Brenneman restricted from editing pages of this arbitration

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

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:

change "their opinions about Misplaced Pages issues" to "their opinions about Misplaced Pages issues and, when expressed appropriately, other issues". Knowing about users views on matters, if they choose to reveal them, is useful. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely it's their edits that matter, not their private opinions. Physchim62 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. See my userpage, where I explicitly state my private opinions and ask that others call me on it if I'm letting those opinions interfere with my duty to make encyclopedic writing be POV free. It can be useful to know the biases of others if we seek to be bias free in our writing. ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is more pleasant to assume good faith unless a user's edits show signs of a systematic bias. Otherwise you will simply have factions accusing each other on the basis of what is on a userpage, not what is being added to the encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Was that a response to me? If so it wasn't quite properly indented, but my answer back is: (with thanks to Tony for repeating what he said on Wikien-I) ... some of us do think that expressing their opinions on their userpages helps Misplaced Pages. Rather than argue whether that is valid here in this subtext I guess I'd rather just see ArbComm acknowledge that it's true some of us do feel that way. If not, apologies for being confused. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A followup. Here is evidence, to me, that POV on user pages is useful. See Talk:Anarchism/Archive35#Re:_Citing_infoshop An editor there called me on my actions in trying to help out User:Steve block in fostering discussion around referencability of a source. His argument was that because I was libertarian my comments were biased. Had I not had all that on my user page he could not have called me on it. I think my suggestion about referencability wasn't actually POV induced, but I find it far better that the info about my POVs be out there, it saves a lot of time. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Recreated content

2) If a page, image, or template deleted because its use was inappropriate 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)

Changed wording, to make it more clear that it's not all deleted content but content deleted because its use was inappropriate. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:59, 18 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. Mindspillage has elegantly addressed the objections of Geni and Jdavidb. --Tony Sidaway 13:24, 18 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)

I've changed the the wording of the proposed principle to state "deleted because its use was inappropriate", whcih should clear that up—does it?

Yes, thanks! Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:41, 18 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:

Ok Fred Bauder 15:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I dislike this wording "through consensus or recognized policy" because it sounds like a gift to trolls and process-wranglers. Even if an item wasn't deleted according to certain agreed rules, it may still be wrong to recreate it--many of our rules are unwritten, but can be inferred from the purpose of the community, which is to creata a high quality 💕. As with most things, we should use our commonsense in deciding matters, and must be careful not to robotically recreate something that is obviously wrong just because the rules have been broken in removing it. --Tony Sidaway 13:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

I can sympathize with not wanting to feed the process wranglers, but perhaps I'm not seeing "recognized policy" as simply "that which is written on policy pages." When you take an administrative action you feel is in the common sense best interests of the goals of the encyclopedia, I look on that as recognized policy, as opposed to written policy. All editiors and admins should recognize what's in the best interest of the encyclopedia. All this said, if "recognized policy" doesn't convey this idea the best, I'm open to suggestions. InkSplotch 16:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"common sense" is not a valid way of justifying anything.Geni 17:23, 18 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)

Deleted pages are not backed up, IIRC. Kim Bruning 09:50, 20 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, gives some sense of 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:

Absolutely. The userbox problem has never, ever been about what editors can say on their userpages. The content guidelines for userpages are already fairly well established. An item that, in a userbox template, may be a problem for wikipedia, is perfectly acceptable if it's only associated with the user who created it and not, by transclusion, many others. --Tony Sidaway 03:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

For Fred's benefit, I'll also agree that I've run ahead of Misplaced Pages consensus. That's what I do. I do some stuff and see if people agree with it, and you know, most of the time they do. Perhaps an administrator should not try to hack out new territory and we should just sit and talk all day without actually trying anything new. In which case, I should be desysopped.

Johnleemk has calculated the majority for this case as 8. Well if any 6 arbitrators come to me and say they think I have damaged the project, I will happily surrender my sysop bit and there's no need to wait for the end of the case. I've given it my best shot, but if I don't have the confidence of the people charged with running the wiki, I'll contribute in other ways. And I'll be more than happy to do so. --Tony Sidaway 03:27, 19 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)

Where's the lack of good faith? He said he didn't understand Tony's comment. For that matter neither do I, even given your partial explanation. You could,y'know, at least pretend to AGF. PurplePlatypus 18:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I read Tony's comment as "What Aaron said is something I agree to. I don't think we need to worry about this one any more, since I'm declaring there to be no disagreement with what Aaron said." Does that help clarify it? (And of course, it's my interpretation of a single word, so I could be wrong - but, also of course, I don't think I am.) Michael Ralston 19:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Tony's comment: "Perhaps an administrator should not try to hack out new territory and we should just sit and talk all day without actually trying anything new. In which case, I should be desysopped."... that's way too far! Personally I think that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We need BOLD editors, and admins. We need you! It's just that if you try things and they don't work out, don't keep trying them over and over. I have a great deal of respect for your contributions, I just wish you weren't quite so unwilling to discuss and modify your approach. Further, I still think maybe this whole thing is about more than you, as I said here (perhaps that should have been placed on this page instead of on the talk?) ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that what Tony did was actually within policy and the goals of the project. It did irritate some members of the community, but that does not mean it should not have been done. Consensus is a good common denominator, but there are times when it is not necessary to gather it (speedy deletes) and even in some cases times when it is not appropriate for it to be used as a criterion for what happens. To do the latter is to stick one's neck out a bit, but in cases where the judgement is sound (and I believe it was here), it can be appropriate and sometimes the only right thing to do. --Improv 22:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is quite posible to try out new things within policy. For example there is no actual rule against applying for adminship for your sockpupet.Geni 06:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lar has written some golden words in there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:22, 20 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:

I like this a lot and I wish it had been in place during the Catholic Alliance affair. --Tony Sidaway 20:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As a principle for WikiUtopia this is fine, but who defines an "experienced" administrator and to what extent are such administrator obliged to wake up consult with User:Jimbo Wales? It might also be useful to mention User:Danny, who has certain delegated powers under WP:OFFICE and the others who deal who OTRS (User:Sannse, User:Mindspillage?). Physchim62 (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Typically Jimbo will show up on the arbcom irc channel when there is serious trouble going on or use the arbcom-l mailing list if it is just trouble on the horizon. I guess you are an experienced administrator if you regularly consult with jimbo when you are uncertain as to how to proceed. Fred Bauder 20:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm two areas I'm unable to acess. Anyway the principle is flawed since I'm pretty sure Jimbo doesn't speak polish.Geni 06:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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:

I'm agreeing with the stance that this wasn't disruption to make a point. I'm also agreeing with the stance that it was disruptive (and I don't know that anyone seriously disputes this), but it wasn't to make a point. (As I see it.)

So, are we left with "don't disrupt Misplaced Pages? How about "don't disrupt Misplaced Pages without solid justification for doing so"? (If you prefer a stronger form, make it "unnecessarily".) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

I feel that current process-as-written is insane, so for me this statement may become true at some point in future, but is not true now. Kim Bruning 05:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC) The statement above also has at least one flawed premise, I see, so it might never become true. Kim Bruning 05:55, 19 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:

The purposes of Misplaced Pages are advanced by liberal policies regarding self-expression by users on their own user pages. A crabbed approach does nothing to serve our purposes or maintain the élan of our contributors. Fred Bauder 15:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Thanks, MarkSweep. I've taken the liberty of rephrasing according to the formula passed 8-0 in the Webcomics case.

• User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes

I'd like to draw Fred's attention to the (in my opinion) excellent work being done in the above personal project by Pathoschild (talk · contribs). He is following after those speedy deleting templates, recovering code, and then substing it into the user pages that had previously transcluded them. And the users are thanking him. They don't care about the template mechanism or anything like that, as long as they have their pretty pastel boxes. I really think that here we are seeing the solution to the problem.

I will take the liberty of proposing a vote of thanks to Pathoschild for working to reduce conflict in this area. --Tony Sidaway 23:25, 18 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)

The role of the arbitration committee

18) "The ArbComm's job is not to enforce the rules. The ArbComm's job is to protect the encyclopedia. That end necessarily and sufficiently justifies the means. In short, if someone is harming the encyclopedia by following the rules, then, yes, we will reprimand people for following the rules."

Comment by Arbitrators:

I question whether this comment by a single arbitrator, lifted from its context, relates in any way as a principle in this matter. Fred Bauder 14:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It is true that someone who disrupts the functioning of the encyclopedia will not be excused because they "followed the rules" or more likely to be applicable in this case, "followed Jimbo's lead." Fred Bauder 14:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I wonder if the Committee would consider endorsing the above pithy summary of its purpose as stated by The Epopt on Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion on January 26, in a discussion on the brokenness of our deletion processes.

I had said:

I think we just need a few words from the new Committee on the undesirability of bad process and the benefits of swift and bold action to end silly squabbles. On Misplaced Pages:Deletion review at the moment we've got a ridiculous debate about a crap article that was speedied while on AfD. Many of those on Deletion review are so tied to process that, even though they admit that the article is hopeless, they're prepared to insist that it be relisted so as to deter what they perceive to be the the real evil: actions taken outside process. We just need a few words like a splash of cold water in the face to dispel that kind of muddled, processbound thinking.

Sjakkalle had asked:

Do you really want the ArbCom to start reprimanding people for following the rules?

(as it happens, I do, where they use rules in defence of doing something stupid).

The above proposed principle is from The Epopt's response. --Tony Sidaway 13:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Polemical or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted

19) Templates, including userboxes which are polemical or inflammatory may be speedily deleted, see Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Templates. For discussion see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Comment_on_project_page_asked_for_links_to_Jimbo.27s_opinions, especially Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Regarding_the_new_Template_CSD.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The dates of this discussion are relevant as they are ongoing Fred Bauder 15:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Disruption

20) Disruptive conduct may lead to a block imposed at an administrators' discretion, or more substantial bans or restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There has been disruption in the events related to this case, and that can lead to blocks or bans/remedies by arbcom (or both). So I don't see a problem. The fact that blocks for disruption are controversial does not mean they are not do-able, and, as in the case of MSK, a month-long block for disruption (among other more concrete things) was finally settled upon. That they are up for review by the community, as all admin actions are, does not mean it isn't still at the admin's discretion. So I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "complete discretion" and why it's bad; there is no denial of community review here. Dmcdevit·t 00:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is a backport of a principle that has been added (but not yet voted on) by a member of the arbitration committee. I place this here so that anyone who wishes to can make comments.

Removing my earlier objection. This is a principle and the committee is well aware of its intended meaning. --Tony Sidaway 03:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Added to "proposed decisions" page, so brought here to discuss. The relevent questions are how are we measuring disruption, and then providing evidence to supprt that. I've proposed elsewhere that we just count how many words get used on a particular debate as a start of a rough metric, perhaps with a note about how many people participated. For example, how much extra dialog was generated by early deletion of AoCW without closing the debate? If we've got some other measures, I'd be happy to hear them.
brenneman 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out, that number is worse than no number at all and is an open invitation to trolls. e.g. how many words would it take to get rid of someone I was pissed off with? - David Gerard 07:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Then give us something else to work with. - brenneman 12:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

Tony Sidaway has engaged with the userbox question

1.1) Tony Sidaway's initial engagement with userboxes--to delete some 80 of them on January 3, was unproductive, but he has not repeated the same error. In mid January, he tried to form a consensus for dealing with userboxes that attack people, companies, and organisations, which he discussed on Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, by deleting them and taking them for review on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. In late January, he welcomed Jimbo Wales' call to editors to "simply change the culture, one person at a time" by suggesting that if people did not feel ready to give up their userboxes, they might instead consider using the "subst" command to place them on their pages, and then edit them to make them more individual and more descriptive of themselves. In mid-February, he worked with other administrators identifying, tagging an deleting userboxes that, in the view of those administrators, passed the T1 criteria of "divisive" or "inflammatory." He has engaged the subject on the mailing list, on IRC, on policy pages devoted to userboxes, on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, in a question put to all other candidates in the arbcom elections, and on the talk page of Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion. (See Evidence - Tony_Sidaway's administrator actions with respect to userboxes)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this is more complete and more accurate. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Lar, I was astonished to find that a very, very small number of people on my watchlist--or indeed anywhere else that I looked except in the Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion and so on actually had political, polemical or religious userboxes on their pages. It amounted to around 10%, so I didn't treat the activity of persuading people to stop as a priority, though I do one day hope to complete the project of cataloguing how many active editors on my contact list (of around 900 people) possess such userboxes.

While many on my contact list do not have such userboxes, there are notable exceptions who are quite well known to me. The Epopt, known to me because he is a longtime arbitrator, Karmafist (a very enthusiastic advocate of userboxes), Johnleemk. Not that many really.

See User:Tony Sidaway/Jimbo's request --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course "political, polemical or religious" is a matter for interpretation. But that's what, as encyclopedists, we are supposed to be good at. --Tony Sidaway 01:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

You also started a project to engage with users to review their useage, how did that ever come out? I recall that I asked if you had plans to look at my pages and you said (in your talk archive) you hadn't gotten to me yet but left the impression you might at some point. ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Tony, "political, polemical or religious" is a matter of interpretation, I'd still be curious as to how you evaluate my page as it would be a good gauge I think. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Can I now add the statment above "he tried to form a consensus for dealing with userboxes that attack people, companies, and organisations, which he discussed on Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, by deleting them and taking them for review" to "Tony Sidaway states repeated deletion is an acceptable editing methodology" or would that be considered bad form? - brenneman 02:26, 21 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 Geni's question about the Great Renaming, I can't find that many of them frankly. There are about 80 deleted 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 (in both sets) were in fact moved and then for some reason the redirects were deleted.

I have no precise count for the number that were copy-pasted although I'm trying to get this.

Only those userboxes which were cloned by copy-paste, rather than moved, would have lost their history and thus wrongly be listed as December creations. 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 in this response. --Tony Sidaway 13:08, 18 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)

These numbers also won't account for redirects, unused templates, etc etc. Too rough a cut to be meaningful. - brenneman 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the above comments address this (their exact implications aren't clear to me), but on the face of it the numbers and facts given cannot possibly all be right. If 1500 was greater than the total number ever created prior to December, then at the very beginning of January there were fewer than 3000 userboxes. (This does not, in itself, contradict there being 3500 in "early January", for certain values of "early"). If 2600 were created in January and the first half of February, that would make somewhere under 5600 at that point. 300 extra boxes seem to have appeared somewhere - my guess is before December, contrary to the "more than had been created..." bit. PurplePlatypus 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Explosive increase in creation of userboxes

2.1) From late 2005, there was a vast increase in template production on Misplaced Pages, in the form of thousands of userboxes, templates designed to be transcluded on a user's page, with the intention of expressing an aspect of that user's identify, such as his skills, lifestyle. views, age, sex or nationality. (See Evidence - Growth of Userboxes)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

New draft. I'm assembling more evidence and if you do so too please edit to include a reference to your evidence. --Tony Sidaway 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The evidence amply supports the use of the word "explosive". The explosion has continued, with political userboxes tripling from 45 to 150 in a six week period. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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)

So how do we measure disruption? Common sense? Because my common sense, as well as that of a lot of other more "vested" editors says that Tony is disruptive. I'm happy to hear an alternative proposed metric. The one I've suggested on WT:RFA for the more genreal case is how often your administrative actions have been reversed. Is that one any better? - brenneman 11:57, 20 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

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

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)

• Comment - What Tony wrote was ambiguous, and it seems as if not everyone grasps where the ambiguity lies. What Tony said may be interpreted as (i) suggesting a plan that he would lay off DRV, then come back to review the situation, or (ii) suggesting that he would lay off DRV, then resume his DRV activities after this break and then come back to review the situation. Case (i) leads to understanding that Tony would lay off DRV for a month, case (ii) for rather less than a month. --- Charles Stewart 01:12, 21 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:

This account was not created to circumvent deletion, as much as it was to move userboxes from template space to user space. Granted this wasn't the best way to go about it but this statement dosn't accuratlly explain the rationale for the creation of the userboxes account. This wasn't meant to be decisive, it was meant as a comprimise --T-rex 19:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that this be withdrawn. No support voiced by anyone other than it's initiator. - brenneman 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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:

I propose this be withdrawn. There are no proposed remedies relating to Crotalus, he's widely accepted to have been acting in good faith, and is continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia. - brenneman 11:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

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 dug out the whole lot and put descriptions in evidence.

Events since I first framed this finding are beginning to make it look a little dated, but it was true of the time during which I myself was involved in implenenting the T1 speedy. --Tony Sidaway 20:08, 18 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)

{{sofixit}} Physchim62 (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That was sarcasm, right? How does it help matters? ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 19 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

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

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

17 withdrawn --too wordy, the facts are all in evidence

17.1) Tony Sidaway deleted the Catholic Alliance of Misplaced Pages page many times as "not remotely compatible with Misplaced Pages's policy of neutrality". The page he deleted was described by its originator as "a readily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened". The deletion debate was cut short and the page was deleted for the last time after three of the eight days normally allotted for discussion, by NicholasTurnbull, with the summation: "I can't see any substantative debate other than mostly pile-on delete votes". (See Evidence - Catholic Alliance of wikipedia)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The facts are all in evidence. Obviously I agree that this was disruption, but I did nothing even close to disruption here. I deleted nothing that had a reason to exist for even one second on Misplaced Pages, Those who undeleted the page, on the other hand, seem to have a case to answer. --Tony Sidaway 02:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is my version. I've split off Nandesuka's version, because we can't agree on wording and I don't want to end up quibbling forever. Life is too short. --Tony Sidaway 04:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This finding of fact is inadequate because it weasels about the the magnitude of the behavior. In particular, it omits the egregious number of deletions Tony performed, the short period in which he performed them, and the number of admins he reversed, all of which speak to the disruptive nature of his activities. Lastly, this version conflates the proper actions of NicholasTurnbull, who closed the debate, with those of Tony, who admittedly acted without regard to the debate. Given this, I prefer the version in 17.2, below, which more fully and accurately describes the circumstances. Nandesuka 02:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd propose that this version be withdrawn. Arbitrators shouldn't be punished because of editor's unwillingness to compromise on the inclusion of facts. - brenneman 05:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

17.2) Tony Sidaway deleted the Catholic Alliance of Misplaced Pages page 7 times within a 24 hour period, in the process undoing the undeletion of five separate administrators. His stated reason was that the page was "not remotely compatible with Misplaced Pages's policy of neutrality. The page he deleted was described by its originator as "a readily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened". The MfD discussion was closed and the page was deleted for the last time after three days, by NicholasTurnbull, with the summation: "I can't see any substantative debate other than mostly pile-on delete votes". (See Evidence - Catholic Alliance of wikipedia)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See my comments on 17.1 above. --Tony Sidaway 04:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The number and frequency of deletions are directly relevant to this behavior being disruptive. Likewise, the fact that NicholasTurnbull closed the deletion debate, thus indicating that he was implementing the will of the community, is rather essential to this finding of fact, as it sets the bad behavior of deleting without regard to the ongoing debate in stark relief. Nandesuka 02:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Does it strike anyone else that hard-headed refusal to compromise is actually what this case is about? This page is now over 25,500 words the withdrawn taking the total to over 30,000. One third of all submissions are by Tony (260 out of 860 non-minor edits). But rather than "quibbling", he's split off because the m:wrong version contained the words "7 times" and "the MfD closed". The timeline of this section could almost be entered into evidence. Forks are bad, and we're expected as editors and particularly as administrators to understand and embrace compromise.
brenneman 05:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

18 withdrawn as too wordy--the facts are all in evidence

18.1) Tony Sidaway repeatedly deleted the userbox Template:User GWB on the grounds that it was an attack template and a multiple incitement to vandalism of the George W. Bush article. Zoe, Doc glasgow and Carbonite also deleted this template, (See Evidence - Template:User GWB)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Death to logorrhea. I fixed "aided by" to say "Zoe, Doc glasgow and Carbonite also deleted this template,". --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to Aaron that he consider just for one moment that the deletion of a damaging and disruptive template that incites vandalism requires no defence. Zoe, Doc glasgow and Carbonite acquitted themselves well in the face of extremely puzzling behavior by other administrators. --Tony Sidaway 06:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

'Aided' sounds like a conspiracy, which it was not. --Doc 23:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

At the most, included in an aside in another finding, but this seems like a "me too" defence. Fails to mention how often each, for example. Another distraction and I propose that this be withdrawn. - brenneman 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I porpose this be withdrawn. Facts are in evidence, make this one line in one of the other proposed sections.
brenneman 11:51, 21 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)

I propose that this be withdrawn. No point in reading the tea leaves, nor using said reading to prop up arguments for or against anything. - brenneman 11:57, 20 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 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:

Since Nandesuka is not a party to this arbitration, this finding of fact seems irrelevant. If we're going to include this, we should make sure we have separate findings of facts for the other 4 admins who reversed Tony's actions as part of the same transaction. But, really, I think this is simply a distraction from the behavior of the parties in the case. Nandesuka 20:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that this be withdrawn. Either let NdK be made a party to this case (which would take all of five minutes) or this only serves as a distraction. - brenneman 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

20.1 withdrawn. Too wordy, facts are all in evidence.

Nandesuka engaged in pointless deletion warring

20.2) Despite an approximately 52-9 pile-on in favor of deletion, and admitting that "there will certainly be consensus to delete this", Nandesuka engaged in repetititve and pointless resurrection of a project page which had been deleted by Tony Sidaway because it was a direct attack on the neutrality policy, He did so because he believed in good faith that it was wrong to delete the article and Tony Sidaway was acting "out of process". (See Evidence - Misplaced Pages:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Redrafted and moved detail to evidence. --Tony Sidaway 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If this is reoved I shall request that a clerk or arbitrator restore it. --Tony Sidaway 04:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Since I am not a party to this arbitration, this finding of fact seems irrelevant, entirely apart from the fact that it is terribly inaccurate (particularly the editorial description in the title). Nandesuka 20:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, you're involved in the facts of this case, and you're thus a party to it. It's hardly something you have a say in. Ambi 04:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither of us have a say in it; only the Arbitration Committee does. Since my name does not appear as an involved party in the relevant place as a party, it's clear that they don't agree with you (at least, not yet.) It's an important distinction, because if I was actually a party to this case, I would of course be much more involved in editing this Workshop page than I have been to date. Of course, I agree (and have always agreed) that the ArbCom could join me to this action, even if I would prefer that they didn't, since no complaints regarding my behavior were made until this Arbitration was well under way. But I don't really anticipate them passing judgment on me without naming me as a party, since that violates several fundamental rules of fairness. Nandesuka 04:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that this be withdrawn. Either let NdK be made a party to this case (which would take all of five minutes) or this only serves as a distraction. - brenneman 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but would like to see some indication of if that's going to happen. If there's no comments about this in a day or two, I think I'll move this entire section on Nadesuka to /Withdrawn at that point. Michael Ralston 19:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Tony - so I'll leave it. I think it'd be a good idea to suggest that Nandesuka be made a party to the whole thing, if you're going to be pushing for something to be found with regards to NdK, but I hardly have any authority to do anything here that people object to, so I'm not doing any more than a mere suggestion. Michael Ralston 04:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed policy on divisive user pages

21) A policy regarding divisive user pages has been proposed as a guideline, ]. It would discourage "Facile labels, polarizing "bumper stickers", polemical user boxes, factionalism, and division" But encourage "Creative informative explanatory self-expression"

Comment by Arbitrators:

This guideline is seen by its promoters as dealing with a concern expressed by Jimbo. There is considerable criticism of the proposal at Misplaced Pages talk:Divisiveness.

This is an important finding of fact. Most important is that it is a proposed guideline regarding which there is considerable disagreement. If Tony has passed beyond advocacy of a position to enforcement of a policy which does not exist there is a problem. My impression is that if he did, he did so in good faith, but perhaps more attention to participating in policy making is called for rather than creating facts on the ground. Fred Bauder 13:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It seems to me that this case concerns how an administrator is supposed to act in a situation where there is no proper policy on a new and potentially damaging situation. .An administrator must never just sit on his hands impotently and fail to act simply because there is nothing written down and the rest of the community cannot make up its mind. --Tony Sidaway

Comment by others:

I propose that this be withdrawn as only at best tangential to the issue at hand. Serves only to distract from other issues. - brenneman 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen evidence that supports Tony was advocating this policy as opposed to (in earlier examples) his own strong feelings and (in later examples) his idiosyncratic interpretations of a hotly contested speedy deletion criterion. This page did not exist until 1 Feb, much of the action under debate took place well before that. Considering that it's seen very light editing and/or discussion compared to the T1 criterion, can you expand on why this page is relevent? - brenneman 14:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed policy on userboxes

21.1) A policy on userboxes has been proposed and met wide approval. It specifically excludes transcluded userboxes for advocacy or declaration of a point of view, but otherwise allows userboxes for free expression including "language, expertise, geographic or national focus, wiki-status (admin etc.), project membership, editing interests, and wiki-tasking (mediator etc.)." It would permit "templates that specify an interest in US politics, for example, but not membership or support of a particular party." Other userboxes would be permitted in the user namespace as long as they were included by substitution rather than transclusion. See WP:UBP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A significant and very hopeful development. This policy proposal is now being discussed and refined on WP:UBP and seems to have almost universal support. --Tony Sidaway 16:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I propose that this be withdrawn as unrelated to the issues this arbitration is examining. Isn't there like a 10,000 word limit on contributions to arbitration workshops? - brenneman 11:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Pathoschild's user project

22) Pathoschild (talk · contribs) is working to reduce conflict over userboxes by replacing the transclusion of deleted userbox templates in-situ by recovered wiki code. See User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes. Users for whom he performs this substitution react very positively , ,.. He also provides a self-service option so that users can come and obtain the code to paste into their own userpages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Amazing stuff. See also how this relates to my own work on the matter. Pathoschild is fast becoming one of the most popular guys on the wiki. I'm sure that the significance of this will be clear to many of us who earnestly seek a resolution to this problem. --Tony Sidaway 04:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If it works around most of the conflict, that's excellent! - David Gerard 09:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that this be withdrawn as only at best tangential to the issue at hand. Not a party to the case, not involved in any of the disputes, etc etc. Serves only to distract from other issues. - brenneman 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I second Aaron's call for withdrawl, but would prefer to see the proposer agree to this before actually performing the withdrawl. Michael Ralston 19:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This finding of fact is a nonsequiteur, and seems completely unrelated to the actions of either party to the case. Nandesuka 13:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's Actions Disrupted Misplaced Pages

23) In deleting a page still undergoing MfD 7 times in a 24 hour period, reversing the undeletions of 5 different administrators who were asking him to desist, Tony Sidaway's actions disrupted Misplaced Pages. Whether or not Tony Sidaway believed that his actions were correct does not make them any less disruptive, even if they were undertaken in good faith. See evidence Evidence - Catholic Alliance of Misplaced Pages

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think it's too wordy, but it's an obvious finding to be considered. The committee should also take into account the fact that I have reflected on this matter at length and still find nothing disruptive about my actions in that incident. If in this incident I was disruptive, my judgement is severely at fault, and I should not be an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a fairly obvious statement that follows from the evidence; as a guideline, if the WP:3RR rule applied to administrative actions, Tony would have violated it. Since we have remedies that relate to disruption as a principle, it's important that we get the bare facts into evidence. Nandesuka 13:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of imflammatory material is never an disruption to the well-being of the encyclopedia. -Zero 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony has been shown to use an overly-broad definition of "inflammatory material." For example, "This user is not a biological parent" was deleted for being "proselytising." Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony was right

24) In the vast majority of the cases cited, Tony's decisions accurately reflected Misplaced Pages's goals and policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this is the crux of the matter. --Tony Sidaway 03:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I see this proposed finding of fact (which in itself is of course rather fatuous--but it's a workshop so that doesn't matter) as a way of clarifying and perhaps answering the point raised here by Fred Bauder on February 17:

"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."

I submit that Fred and his fellow arbitrators now have in their possession ample evidence of my good faith, willingness to submit to consensus, respect for Misplaced Pages, constant engagement with the problems afflicting the decision-making process, and a very keen appreciation of the necessity of finding a solution with which we all can live. --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Has the advantage over several other findings of actually being true. Phil Sandifer 00:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that this be withdrawn. Fails to qualify what "vast majority" means, fails to assume good faith in that anyone else might also understand Misplaced Pages's goals and policies, does not adress questions raised, does not assist in moving towards a solution.
brenneman 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconding Aaron Brenneman's proposal. Even if every last person were to stipulate it as true, it still wouldn't be relevant to the topic at hand. Tony Sidaway either did wrong here or he did not. --Aaron 01:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So he can be found to be wrong, but can't be found to be right? I'm concerned by this, and more so by Mr. Brenneman's view that such a finding would be an insult to others, fail to address questions raised and fail to move towards a solution. It seems to me that most of this arbitration seeks to determine if any of Mr. Sidaway's actions conflict with Misplaced Pages's goals and/or policies. Is he necessarily guilty until proven innocent here? Or is this just a punishment phase?

I can see a valid objection behind "fails to qualify what vast majority means", but I'm not sure it invalidates this proposal entirely. A great deal of evidence has been heaped upon this case, it may not be possible to go through each and every action detailed on the evidence page to say, "Tony did right here" or "Tony did wrong here". This could provide a place to begin, either in its current form or reversed ("..Tony's decisions did not accurately..."), allowing the arbcom to focus on what they feel are significant examples or exemptions to the point.

I do not, nor do I think any of us, expect to see a final decision consisting of just this point and a message to run along and play. InkSplotch 16:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it is facile and superficial. It also promotes a false duality, in that are only options are "Tony was right" or "Tony was wrong". This is just another in a series of proposals that have denied there exists the possibility for nuanced findings. It also presupposes a monolithic interpretation of "Misplaced Pages's goals and policies" and attempts to close debate over both these goals and Tony's actions. To even attempt to defend proposed finding this takes "assume good faith" beyond the limits of reason. We're all being so damn nice, can't we also be a bit honest at the same time?
brenneman 22:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Crotalus admonished on policy

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

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:

Wording is rather eccentric, but there is the germ of a decent admonishment lurking beneath the surface. --Tony Sidaway 18:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Read my comments elsewhere on this page re. disruption by admins. Only the strongest and wisest can avoid disruption entirely. Kim Bruning 12:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway to be desysopped

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn

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 24 hours? 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 20.2 (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)

I certainly shall not be withdrawing this. I am convinced that actions like Nandesuka's are misconceived and malign. --Tony Sidaway 09:05, 21 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)

No, Nadndesuka should be commonded for attepmting to follow policy and prevent this whole debate in the first place. --T-rex 20:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that this be withdrawn as only at best tangential to the issue at hand. Not a party to the case, gives the appearance of retributive finding, etc etc. - brenneman 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I second Aaron's call for withdrawl, but would prefer to see the proposer agree to this before actually performing the withdrawl. (Or at least someone else indicate that they feel it should be withdrawn.) Michael Ralston 19:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes limited

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn.

Pathoschild commended

7) Pathoschild is commended for his practical, efficient and popular work to reduce conflict at a time of uncertainty about Misplaced Pages policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See proposed finding of fact 22, Pathoschild's user project. --Tony Sidaway 23:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We have a clerk on this case (

) and I'm sure that if asked he'll oblige by performing any reasonable maintainance tasks in a neutral and efficient manner. --Tony Sidaway 00:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If a clerk removed this I should probably ask him to move it back. --Tony Sidaway 07:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I propose that this be withdrawn as only at best tangential to the issue at hand. Not a party to the case, not involved in any of the disputes, etc etc. - brenneman 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I second Aaron's call for withdrawl, but would prefer to see the proposer agree to this before actually performing the withdrawl. Michael Ralston 19:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Based upon Tony's comments above being well short of demurral, rather than further fetishism of the clerk's position perhaps the next person who's neither me nor Tony could move this to withdrawn? - brenneman 01:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway banned

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn.

Tony Sidaway admonished on consesus

9) Tony Sidaway admonished to demonstrate greater respect for consesus, and he is reminded that wikipedia is built upon the spirit of compromise. He is further encouraged to seek outcomes arrived at through mutual concession. Working in accord with other contributors is expected of all editors, and particularly of adminstrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Follows from the conduct demonstrated on this page and the other events in question. - brenneman 05:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) Write proposed enforcement here

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)

Should people's signed comments be "junked" in this manner? - brenneman 01:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would think not but I could be wrong. It seems a bit "out of process" for a clerk to do that, much less a party... Perhaps an ArbComm member directed him to do it? ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You are all welcome to advocate your positions on this page. That is what it is for. Fred Bauder 01:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In the diff Aaron refers to, I think an entire section (Findings of Fact 20.1 "Nandesuka undeletes Catholic Alliance of Misplaced Pages three times in the face of a massive consensus to delete") was removed. It was removed by the person who proposed it, I think (although I could be wrong about that, would have to wade through the history to find it) but the removal also removed comments by others. Hence my question, I would think that unless ArbComm so directed (it does reserve the right to refactor as necessary) it would be an out of process deletion, as it were... ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it was my choice to remove it and I didn't think about the signed comments because they were associated with the motion that I withdrew. Aaron remembered the technque that I used in the webcomics case, and moved a copy of the withdrawn motion to a "withdrawn" page. The Committee definitely does not endorse the removal that I carried out (which was a faux pas for which I apologise). --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem then! May I suggest that a stub be left behind as in that case with a link to the Withdrawn page? That might reduce confusion. ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Word Smog

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn.