Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration‎ | Tony Sidaway

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Causa sui (talk | contribs) at 00:43, 30 March 2006 (→‎Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop 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 she/he so chooses. 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.

On this case, 1 Arbitrator is recused and 1 is inactive, so 12 out of 14 arbitrators are available and 7 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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Disruption

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

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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 Wikipedia 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.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC) But perhaps being too explicit - creating a noose with which to hang oneself, etc. etc....[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Respect for Wikipedia's consensus decision making process

3) 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.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wheel warring

4) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute."

Support:
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Too strong with the current wording. Wheel-warring is unacceptable; the definition given is not. And, yes, I've now changed my mind against the precise wording we chose in the first case to feature wheel-warring per se.[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Still thinking about this, now. Dmcdevit·t 18:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's a handy phrase without a handy definition, in my view. Charles Matthews 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... but repetition is the key

4.1) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (repeatedly reversing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute."

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC) It is the repetition (with or without discussion, really) that is the problem. Someone who immediately reverts anyone doing a delete - but does so only once per item - is not really wheel-warring, but doing wrong by not discussing things. The two are not the same and shouldn't be conflated.[reply]
  2. Of course, though it may not be wheel warring, it's still important to discuss not only before repeatedly reversing, but before reversing at all. (Which is implicit in the first.) Dmcdevit·t 18:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Repetition is not the key; the first time an admin undoes another admin's actions without dicussion he/she is wheel warring. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Jimbo as policy maker

5) Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, may make or alter Wikipedia policy when he chooses to do so.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Added "or alter".[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No innovation here. Charles Matthews 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Assume good faith

6) Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC) See below. Didn't just change this one because it's a tad larger a change in semantics than I'd be comfortable claiming Dom agreed with. :-)[reply]
  2. support James's's change ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As per James. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... until shown otherwise

6.1) Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others in the lack of evidence to the contrary.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Better.[reply]
  2. Both are fine. Dmcdevit·t 18:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Though I actually prefer the first. You're required to assume good faith, you're not required to excuse bad actions even if done in good faith. We can't judge motivations; we can only judge behavior. (</brokenrecord>) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Polemical or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted

7) Templates, particularly userboxes, which are polemical or inflammatory may be speedily deleted; see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates. For discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Comment on project page asked for links to Jimbo's opinions, and especially Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Regarding the new Template CSD.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decision making and dispute resolution

8) Decision making on Wikipedia is normally done through discussion of issues leading to consensus, see Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies decided?. In some instances, policy represents a codification of existing practice, or decisions made by the administrative superstructure of Wikipedia (that is, Jimbo or the Board of Trustees). When disputes arise regarding what is policy or what ought to be done, forums such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard are available for discussion regarding the matter, and failing agreement, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (I made 'usually' into 'normally', an old stand-by.)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Crotalus horridus' recreates userboxes

1) Crotalus horridus has repeatedly recreated inflammatory userboxes deleted by multiple administrators, including Template:User admins ignoring policy, Template:User Anti-UN, and Template:User Anti-ACLU, which had been deleted under the new T1 "inflammatory and divisive" speedy deletion criterion.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 11:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

The T1 speedy deletion criterion and Crotalus horridus

2) On February 6th, sannse (talk · contribs) added a new criterion for speedy deletion: "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." After it was reverted, Jimbo Wales reinserted it [1] and made comments indicating it is now policy [2].

After it had become policy, Crotalus horridus made several contested changes to the criterion [3] [4], and then deleted it entirely, [5]. The last edit in particular constitutes disruption.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 11:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia

3) Tony Sidaway deleted the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia page 8 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 Wikipedia'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 Catholic Alliance of wikipedia evidence)

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 11:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tony Sidaway has wheel warred

4) Tony Sidaway has engaged in wheel warring multiple times. These include deletion of Wikipedia:Catholic_Alliance_of_wikipedia eight times, undeletion of Systemwars.com five times, deletion of Template:User GWB five times, undeletion of Warren Benbow four times, undeletion of Monique deMoan three times, undeletion of List of Louisiana Baptist University people three times, undeletion of Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) three times, undeletion of Tally (accounting) two times, undeletion of SuperOffice two times, undeletion of Seth Ravin two times, undeletion of Thomasine Church two times, undeletion of Brian Brolly two times, undeletion of OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood three times, and undeletion of Gazeebow Unit two times. These include the reversal of more than a dozen different administrators.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. A pattern of contesting admin actions (not necessarily wrongly, this lumps disparate cases); within that cases such as the LBU list, AfD decision, where I think he has no leg to stand on. Charles Matthews 11:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tony Sidaway has acted in good faith, but upset others

5) While there is no substantial reason to doubt Tony Sidaway has acted in good faith, other editors have expressed reasonable concerns about his methods.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC) But only under my revised defintion thereof.[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 11:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Irrelevant. Most of the people sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee are acting in good faith. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, I believe he acted in good faith. But his behaviour was unacceptable and this FoF is irrelevant. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crotalus horridus has acted disruptively

6) In addition to the recreations and deletion of policy, many of Crotalus horridus' edits constitute disruption, including the nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct for deletion and four reverts of its speedy closing. He has also violated the three-revert rule and engaged in disruption with respect to Template:ElectionResultsCA. See Physchim62's evidence.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 11:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Crotalus horridus banned from userboxes

1) Crotalus horridus is prohibited from creating or editing userboxes (either templatized or hard-coded into a userpage). If Crotalus horridus edits a userbox, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be one year. Blocks and bans should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony Sidaway#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 11:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Crotalus horridus placed on general Probation

2) Crotalus horridus is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If, in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, it is found that he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 11:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tony Sidaway on administrative 1RR

3) Tony Sidaway is prohibited from reversing any administrative action more than once. Each reversal shall be accompanied by an explanation in the appropriate venue, including especially a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review in the case of a disputed deletion.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC) If 3.1 doesn't pass.[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ➥the Epopt 04:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This is a 'little bit pregnant' type of remedy. If it's a vote of no confidence, it doesn't go far enough. If not, it goes too far. Charles Matthews 19:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Contraindicated by FoF #5 ➥the Epopt 15:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No it isn't, most "warriors" act in good faith, but their behaviour is still disruptive. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Tony Sidaway cannot reverse another administrator's administrative actions

3.1) Tony Sidaway is prohibited from reversing any other administrator's administrative actions (e.g. protection, deletion, blocking) aside from simple editing actions (e.g. rollbacks).

Support:
  1. This should go far enough. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Far, far too strong. James F. (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely not. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. no way ➥the Epopt 00:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No, too far. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Best if Tony awards himself a month's holiday from setting other admins straight; and on returning leaves the Self-Righteous Brothers thing to Harry Enfield. Charles Matthews 11:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not "far far" too strong" (desysopping would be far too strong, not this), but I'm afraid this'll interfere with normal administrative activity, where 1RR wouldn't, even preventing consentual reversals. Needs reworking before I'll vote. Dmcdevit·t 23:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should Tony Sidaway or Crotalus horridus violate any of the remedies in this decision, they may be briefly blocked, up to two weeks in the event of repeat offences. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. First choice. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 23:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 04:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As usual, "may be", not "must be", admin discretion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Differing levels of seriousness. James F. (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 11:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

... for Crotalus horridus

1.1) Should Crotalus horridus violate any of the remedies applicable to him in this decision, he may be briefly blocked for up to two weeks in the event of repeat offences. Any blocks under this enforcement are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 11:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer the enforcement clause in the remedy. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Prefer 1) Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... for Tony Sidaway

1.2) Should Tony Sidaway violate any of the remedies applicable to him in this decision, he may be briefly blocked for up to a week in the event of repeat offences. Any blocks under this enforcement are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No particular preference. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. ➥the Epopt 04:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 11:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Prefer 1) Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ditto. Neutralitytalk 21:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  • All proposed principles pass except for 4 and 6 (4.1 and 6.1 pass instead).
  • All proposed findings of fact pass.
  • All proposed remedies pass except for 3.1
  • Only proposed enforcement 1 passes. Dmcdevit·t 04:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.

  1. Time to close. Dmcdevit·t 04:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Charles Matthews 14:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Enforcement has now passed. Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Oppose closure. No proposed enforcement has passed - currently we have 5 votes for the most popular enforcement proposal, but 7 are required. Remedies must also have enforcement. Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Jay, we need two more votes on the enforcement. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raul654 05:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. close ➥the Epopt 20:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway/Proposed_decision&oldid=46093085"