This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Esquivalience (talk | contribs) at 01:51, 24 May 2015 (→Proposed principles: proposals). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:51, 24 May 2015 by Esquivalience (talk | contribs) (→Proposed principles: proposals)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | The Workshop phase for this case is closed. Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go to the talk page and create an edit request. |
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Case management
Because of the unusual number of participants with i-bans in this case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:
1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.
2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.
3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.
4. Similar arrangements will apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.Motions and requests by the parties
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Motion to Recuse
Lightbreather has been informed that after extensive discussion by the committee there was no consensus that Salvio should recuse. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am very disturbed that Salvio giuliano has not recused. He issued a bad block that "not supported by consensus of the oversight-l team". Per Ironholds: Wow; this is a tremendously inappropriate block, regardless of the merits, for Salvio to be making. Salvio: your many comments about Lightbreather over an extremely long period demonstrate that there is no way you are uninvolved enough to make a call here. Salvio has made numerous personal attacks on Lighbreather. I remind the committee the Arbitrators are expected to act with integrity and good faith at all times. I do not expect that Salvio will materially affect the outcome of the case, but the whole purpose of recusal is to maintain the community's trust in the integrity of the Arbitration process. I would therefore ask for the Committee to recuse Salvio. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- The committee is currently discussing it, and will issue a ruling on the matter. LFaraone 04:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Ironholds:It's not the case that the Oversighters decided the block was incorrect. The feeling was that the block for made for the wrong reason (ie it was felt that the text was not oversightable), not that the block should never have been made, and the decision to unblock immediately was not a decision by the Oversighters. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- What User:Hawkeye7 pointed out is not a personal attacks. Lightbreather was caught lying twice, that's not a personal attack that is facts. I'm perfectly content with Salvio on the case as he is the counterweight to User:Gorilla Warfare. All of those comments deal with administrative actions and purely administrative actions do not make a person involved. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Assuming those of us who are i-banned will be allowed to address and refer to each other in this case's proceedings, I would like to ask: Is the workshop page the place for i-banned people to throw about their opinions about their fellow banned editors? If Hell in a Bucket wants to say such things, shouldn't he go to the evidence page and make a statement there? If this is an acceptable place to do what he did above, I'd like the opportunity to join in. Lightbreather (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- I am not familiar with the workings of whatever is going on here, but, based upon the diffs submitted above, Mr. Salvio should recuse himself. Otherwise, he should be excused from service. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is frankly kind of astonishing, and comes on the back of Lightbreather asking for the same thing (and receiving the message "no" for her troubles). If Salvio were ignorant of this issue, I'd get it, but it was explicitly brought up less than a week ago in relation to his OS block of Lightbreather, and the oversighters decided his block was incorrect. Now, either it's sheer coincidence that a bad call was made around someone everyone except Salvio thought he was too involved to be going near, or it's not. But for safety's sake, opt towards removing the possibility entirely. I can't believe Salvio would be so incredibly vital to a committee with a membership in two digits that they couldn't survive not having him around for one week. Ironholds (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Dougweller: thanks for the clarification; my point, though, was "Salvio made the wrong call there". That he made the wrong call in evaluating the content is...more of an argument, not less. Ironholds (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
- Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.
Proposed final decision
Proposals by Esquivalience
Proposed principles
Purpose of Misplaced Pages and the effect of disruptive editing
1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to produce a high-quality, verifiable, and neutral encyclopedia that anyone can use for free, disseminate, or build a derivative work upon, with some restrictions. Disruptive editing can damage or disrupt the project. Such damage or disruption not only damages the Misplaced Pages community, but ultimately, the reader.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Canvassing
2) Consensus should represent the wider community. Notifying a select group that is expected to support the notifier's preferred outcome skews consensus, which is detrimental to the project.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Ownership of articles
3) Misplaced Pages is edited and improved by the free work of many contributors, not just one. "Ownership" of articles is detrimental to the reader.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Assume good faith
4) Editors must assume good faith. Lack of such an assumption harms the community and deters constructive, or in some cases, even prolific contributors.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point
5) When an editor disagrees over a rule or an application of the rule, then he/she should try to gain consensus, explaining why the rule is being misapplied or why the rule is detrimental to Misplaced Pages. Disrupting Misplaced Pages to convince editors is contrary to the spirit of consensus.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Sockpuppetry is a serious accusation
6) When one suspects sockpuppetry, he/she must provide serious evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Accusing an editor of sockpuppetry in bad faith is a very serious personal attack.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Sockpuppetry is a serious accusuation (#2)
6.1)
Never edit war
7) Edit warring is harmful to Misplaced Pages and individual articles. It is important that, in a content dispute, readers will still read a reasonably stable (i.e. doesn't change, in a manner detrimental to the reader, from day to day) version of an article, and that communal consensus is trying to be established.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Tendentious editing is harmful
8) Tendentious editing (continuing to edit in an objectionable manner despite opposition) is harmful to communal consensus and the goal of building an encyclopedia. It is also considered disruptive editing.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
No personal attacks
9) Personal attacks are (and should be) taken very seriously, as they deter contributors away (the targets of personal attacks and future editors who see such attacks) and slow down the progression of Misplaced Pages.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Misplaced Pages is not a battleground
10) Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges or cast personal attacks and incivil comments.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Sympathy is limited to understanding
11) Editors who have suffered a tragic incident should be understood. That doesn't mean that the affected editor can edit war, disrupt consensus, or violate Misplaced Pages policy.
- 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:
Template
2) {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:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Example 2
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {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:
Template
2) {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:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Example 3
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {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:
Template
2) {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:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: