Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:31, 28 February 2007

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so choose. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

For this case, there are 15 active arbitrators and none are recused, so 8 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Restoration of Freakofnurture's admin privileges

1) Since neither long-term suspension nor revocation of Freakofnurture's admin privileges is being seriously contemplated by the Committee, those privileges are hereby restored.

Support:

Oppose:

I don't see any reason to rush into this and re-sysop someone prior to full deliberation and investigation of the case; doing so would seemingly place us in a precarious position, handcuffing our ability in some aspects even before the full case is looked into. In addition, if de-sysopping, even for a limited period of time, was proposed and passed, then this motion would not make any sense, having him re-sysopped, de-sysopped, and then re-sysopped again in a short period of time. In any case, the difference between any motion passing and the conclusion of this case should not be a significantly longer amount of time, and I'm just not comfortable with this now. Let the case take its due course, giving us the time needed to adequately assess the situation independently. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 03:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Deletion of pages

1) Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion together provide policy and procedure for deletion and undeletion. Wikipedia administrators are expected to use the deletion and undeletion abilities granted to them in a fashion consistent with these policies. Administrators who wish to delete articles that are clearly outside the criteria for speedy deletion should list those articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Undeletion of pages

2) While undeletion policy permits admins to reverse an obviously out-of-process deletion, discussion is the more appropriate response when there is disagreement. The proper venue for such discussion is Wikipedia:Deletion review. As a general rule, articles listed there are left deleted at least until a strong consensus begins to emerge in favor of overturning the deletion of the article, or are marked as "temporarily undeleted" if undeletion is necessary so that participants in the review can see the article's contents. Where consensus is unclear, the article should remain deleted until the five-day comment period has elapsed.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Role of Deletion Review

3) When concerns arise that an article may have been deleted in violation of deletion policy, the main focus of a deletion review should be on whether policy was followed. The relative merits of keeping or deleting the article should be secondary. Participants at Deletion Review should not attempt to utilize the out-of-process deletion of an article they dislike as a convenient opportunity to dispose of it. Instead, they should uphold policy by voting to undelete the article and then list it at articles for deletion after the deletion review completes.

Support:

Oppose:

Our deletion policy isn't meant to be a suicide pact; if something should obviously be deleted, undeleting it merely because Form 201.4(b) wasn't correctly countersigned is unhelpful. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to waste more of the communities time with an AFD if the deletion is obviously the right choice. FloNight 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Role of Deletion Review

3.1) When concerns arise that an article may have been deleted in violation of deletion policy, the main focus of a deletion review should be on whether policy was followed. The relative merits of keeping or deleting the article should be secondary.

Support:

Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This better reflects what is in the best interest of the community. FloNight 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essjay (Talk) 00:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Expectations and role of administrators

4) In general, Wikipedia's administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users, particularly with regard to principles such as assume good faith and no personal attacks. Administrators are expected to keep their cool and should not use administrator-specific capabilities casually or without thought. They should lead by example and serve as a model of the proper editing behavior to which other users should aspire.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit wars considered harmful

5) The essence of an edit war is repeated reversion of an action as a substitute for discussion leading to consensus. Edit wars undermine the consensus-based decisionmaking upon which Wikipedia depends.

The practice of carrying on a discussion in the comment field for edits or log entries is unhelpful and is not a suitable substitute for genuine discussion in an appropriate forum.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ignoring all rules

6) Wikipedia has many policies and processes that affect deletion and undeletion of pages. Where there is strong community support (or minimally, a lack of objections), it is sometimes permissible to sidestep or otherwise take liberties with these process. Those who ignore all rules should proceed slowly and deliberately; act only when informed by any existing discussion, history, or logs; and should be prepared to explain the reasoning for their actions. If ensuing discussion shows an absence of community support, practitioners of Ignore All Rules should have the grace to revert their own actions.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Early closure of discussions based on WP:SNOW is harmful

7) The Committee notes that the "Snowball clause" is not policy. Early closure of discussions on WP:SNOW grounds denies some Wikipedians the opportunity to comment and can lead to escalation due to the lack of a discussion venue.

Support:

Oppose:

Closing discussions early can be helpful in some situations. This is a too negative take on early closures. FloNight 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Yanksox' deletion of Daniel Brandt was inappropriate

1) The deletion of Daniel Brandt by Yanksox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was inappropriate. It was not supported by Wikipedia:Deletion policy. In particular, the article as a whole did not fall under the WP:LIVING guidelines for deletion of unsourced derogatory information, and the article did not fit any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Yanksox did not engage in a sufficient amount of on-wiki consensus-building or discussion, either before or after the fact, to justify Yanksox' actions under our doctrine of ignore all rules.

Yanksox' subsequent re-deletion of the article without meaningful discussion was also inappropriate, and Yanksox' comments on the deletion log for these and other related actions were unnecessarily inflammatory.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Bumm13's undeletion of Daniel Brandt was inappropriate

Bumm13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) undeleted the article while a deletion review was running 14-4 in support of endorsing deletion. Bumm13 was aware of the deletion review and undeleted the article anyway, without applying a "temporary undeletion" template or otherwise linking to the deletion review.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Gaillimh's early closure of the deletion review was inappropriate

Gaillimh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed the deletion review, citing WP:SNOW, while active discussion was underway, and then compounded this mistake by attempting to force closure through an edit war.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Geni undeleted the article twice rather than discuss its deletion

Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), despite being aware of the discussions on the deletion review page, undeleted the article twice rather than participate in discussion. Geni has been criticized for such behavior in the past.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Doc glasgow deleted the article inappropriately

Despite being aware that the deletion of the article article was controversial, Doc glasgow deleted it. As a mitigating factor, Doc was participating fully in discussion at WP:DRV and discussion there supported deletion.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Mailer diablo deleted the article inappropriately

Despite being aware that the article was being repeatedly deleted and undeleted, Mailer diablo deleted it. As a mitigating factor, Mailer diablo was participating in discussion at WP:DRV and discussion there supported deletion. Also, Mailer diablo re-created the article with a notice directing users to the deletion review page.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Freakofnurture undeleted the article inappropriately

While Freakofnurture's first undeletion of the article is defensible based on undeletion policy, this user's subsequent undeletion is not, having been made in the awareness that the article was being repeatedly undeleted and redeleted.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Yanksox desysopped

1) For repeatedly deleting an article in defiance of policy and without discussion, the emergency revocation of Yanksox' administrator privileges is left in place indefinitely. Yanksox may reapply for adminship privileges at any time or may appeal to this Committee for reinstatement.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Gaillimh banned

2) For inappropriate early closure of a Deletion Review discussion, and edit warring regarding the same, Gaillimh's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 10 days.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Geni desysopped

3) For repeated undeletion of an article without discussion and in violation of policy, and in light of repeated related problems in the past, the emergency revocation of Geni's administrator privileges is left in place. Geni's administrator privileges are to be restored after period of 60 days has elapsed from the time of the emergency revocation.

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Geni has been emergency desysoped three times now and has a venerable history of wheel-warring. The Arbitration Committee has made it plain in the past that such behaviour is unacceptable and restoration of privileges without explicit community consent would be inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Geni is an unrepentant wheel warrior; he's been doing this for at least two years and nobody has been willing to do anything about it. Essjay (Talk) 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

3.1) For repeated undeletion of an article without discussion and in violation of policy, and in light of repeated related problems in the past, the emergency revocation of Geni's administrator privileges is left in place. Geni may seek restoration of administrator privileges after a period of 60 days has elapsed from the time of the emergency revocation.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Doc glasgow, Bumm13, and Mailer diablo cautioned

4) Doc glasgow, Bumm13, and Mailer diablo are strongly cautioned regarding involvement in repeated deletion/undeletion of pages.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Freakofnurture

5) For undeleting an article in opposition to policy and consensus, the Committee believes that a brief suspension of Freakofnurture's administrator privileges would be appropriate. Since this has already occurred, Freakofnurture's administrator privileges may be restored effective upon closure of this case.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

@@ Line 133: / Line 133: @@
 :# [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 21:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 :# [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
+:# <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] [[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">(<small>Talk</small>)</font>]]</span> 00:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 :Oppose:
 :#